quote:

---

Civilization Watch
By Orson Scott Card

Humpty Dumpty Logic

A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that "day" shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as "night," but it might as well.

By declaring that homosexual couples are denied their constitutional rights by being forbidden to "marry," it is treading on the same ground.

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.

Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

Which is the modern Jacobin equivalent of crying, "Off with their heads!"

We will once again be performing a potentially devastating social experiment on ourselves without any attempt to predict the consequences and find out if the American people actually want them.

But anyone who has any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play, will realize that this new diktat of the courts will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating.

Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone.

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.

However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were.

Marrying Is Hard to Do.

Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men.

Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do. But a man and a woman come together as strangers and their natural impulses remain at odds throughout their lives, requiring constant compromise, suppression of natural desires, and an unending effort to learn how to get through the intersexual swamp.

And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.

And in those families where one or both parents were missing, usually because of death, either stepparents, adoptive parents, or society in general would step in to provide, not just nurturing, but also the appropriate role models.

It is a demonstrated tendency -- as well as the private experience of most people -- that when we become parents, we immediately find ourselves acting out most of the behaviors we observed in the parent of our own sex. We have to consciously make an effort to be different from them.

We also expect our spouse to behave, as a parent, in the way we have learned to expect from the experiences we had with our opposite-sex parent -- that's why so many men seem to marry women just like their mother, and so many women to marry men just like their father. It takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern.

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

The War On Marriage

Of course, in our current society we are two generations into the systematic destruction of the institution of marriage. In my childhood, it was rare to know someone whose parents were divorced; now, it seems almost as rare to find someone whose parents have never been divorced.

And a growing number of children grow up in partial families not because of divorce, but because there never was a marriage at all.

The damage caused to children by divorce and illegitimate birth is obvious and devastating. While apologists for the current system are quick to blame poverty resulting from "deadbeat dads" as the cause, the children themselves know this is ludicrous.

There are plenty of poor families with both parents present whose children grow up knowing they are loved and having good role models from both parents.

And there are plenty of kids whose divorced parents have scads of money -- but whose lives are deformed by the absence of one of their parents in their lives.

Most broken or wounded families are in that condition because of a missing father. There is substantial and growing evidence that our society's contempt for the role of the father in the family is responsible for a massive number of "lost" children.

Only when the father became powerless or absent in the lives of huge numbers of children did we start to realize some of the things people need a father for: laying the groundwork for a sense of moral judgment; praise that is believed so that it can instill genuine self-confidence.

People lacking in fundamental self-esteem don't need gold stars passed out to everyone in their class. Chances are, they need a father who will say -- and mean -- "I'm proud of you."

This is an oversimplification of a very complex system. There are marriages that desperately need to be dissolved for the safety of the children, for instance, and divorced parents who do a very good job of keeping both parents closely involved in the children's lives.

But you have to be in gross denial not to know that children would almost always rather have grown up with Dad and Mom in their proper places at home. Most kids would rather that, instead of divorcing, their parents would acquire the strength or maturity to stop doing the things that make the other parent want to leave.

Marriage Is Everybody's Business.

And it isn't just the damage that divorce and out-of-wedlock births do to the children in those broken families: Your divorce hurts my kids, too.

All American children grow up today in a society where they are keenly aware that marriages don't last. At the first sign of a quarrel even in a stable marriage that is in no danger, the children fear divorce. Is this how it begins? Will I now be like my friends at school, shunted from half-family to half-family?

This is not trivial damage. Kids thrive best in an environment that teaches them how to be adults. They need the confidence and role models that come from a stable home with father and mother in their proper places.

So long before the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to play Humpty Dumpty, the American people had plunged into a terrible experiment on ourselves, guided only by the slogan of immaturity and barbarism: "If it feels good, do it!"

Civilization depends on people deliberately choosing not to do many things that feel good at the time, in order to accomplish more important, larger purposes. Having an affair; breaking up a marriage; oh, those can feel completely justified and the reasons very important at the time.

But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and children have a vital stake in society.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

Civilization Is Rooted in Reproductive Security.

There is a very complex balance in maintaining a monogamous society, with plenty of lapses and exceptions and mechanisms to cope with the natural barbaric impulses of the male mating drive. There is always room to tolerate a small and covert number of exceptions to the rule.

But the rule must be largely observed, and must be seen to be observed even more than it actually is. If trust between the sexes breaks down, then males who are able will revert to the broadcast strategy of reproduction, while females will begin to compete for males who already have female mates. It is a reproductive free-for-all.

Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.

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

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

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

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

Even if the political system changes, as long as the marriage rules remain intact, the civilization can go on.

Balancing Family and Society

There's a lot of quid pro quo in civilization, though. Not all parents are good providers, for instance. So society, in one way or another, must provide for the children whose parents are either incapable or irresponsible.

Society must also step in to protect children from abusive adults; and the whole society must act in loco parentis, watching out for each other's children, trusting that someone else is also watching out for their own.

The degree of trust can be enormous. We send our children to school for an enormous portion of their childhood, trusting that the school will help civilize them while we parents devote more of our time to providing for them materially (or caring for younger children not yet in school).

At the same time, parents recognize that non-parents are not as trustworthy caretakers. The school provides some aspects of civilization, but not others. Schools expect the parents to civilize their children in certain ways in order to take part safely with other children; parents expect to be left alone with some aspects of child-rearing, such as religion.

In other words, there are countless ways that parents and society at large are constantly negotiating to find the best balance between the parents' natural desire to protect their children -- their entrants in the reproductive lottery -- and the civilization's need to bring the greatest number of children, not just to adulthood, but to parenthood as committed members of the society who will teach their children to also be good citizens.

America's Anti-Family Experiment

In this delicate balance, it is safe to say that beginning with a trickle in the 1950s, but becoming an overwhelming flood in the 1960s and 1970s, we took a pretty good system, and in order to solve problems that needed tweaking, we made massive, fundamental changes that have had devastating consequences.

Now huge numbers of Americans know that the schools are places where their children are indoctrinated in anti-family values. Trust is not just going -- for them it's gone.

Huge numbers of children are deprived of two-parent homes, because society has decided to give legal status and social acceptance to out-of-wedlock parenting and couples who break up their marriages with little regard for what is good for the children.

The result is a generation of children with no trust in marriage who are mating in, at best, merely "marriage-like" patterns, and bearing children with no sense of responsibility to society at large; while society is trying to take on an ever greater role in caring for the children who are suffering -- while doing an increasingly bad job of it.

Parents in a stable marriage are much better than schools at civilizing children. You have to be a fanatical ideologue not to recognize this as an obvious truth -- in other words, you have to dumb down or radically twist the definition of "civilizing children" in order to claim that parents are not, on the whole, better at it.

We are so far gone down this road that it would take a wrenching, almost revolutionary social change to reverse it. And with the forces of P.C. orthodoxy insisting that the solutions to the problems they have caused is ever-larger doses of the disease, it is certain that any such revolution would be hotly contested.

Now, in the midst of this tragic collapse of marriage, along comes the Massachusetts Supreme Court, attempting to redefine marriage in a way that is absurdly irrelevant to any purpose for which society needs marriage in the first place.

Humpty Has Struck Before.

We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."

But this doesn't turn them into families, or even make rational people believe they're families. It just makes it politically unacceptable to use the word family in any meaningful way.

The same thing will happen to the word marriage if the Massachusetts decision is allowed to stand, and is then enforced nationwide because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution.

Just because you give legal sanction to a homosexual couple and call their contract a "marriage" does not make it a marriage. It simply removes marriage as a legitimate word for the real thing.

If you declare that there is no longer any legal difference between low tide and high tide, it might stop people from publishing tide charts, but it won't change the fact that sometimes the water is lower and sometimes it's higher.

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it's another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America.

Supporters of homosexual "marriage" dismiss warnings like mine as the predictable ranting of people who hate progress. But the Massachusetts Supreme Court has made its decision without even a cursory attempt to ascertain the social costs. The judges have taken it on faith that it will do no harm.

You can't add a runway to an airport in America without years of carefully researched environmental impact statements. But you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society without political process or serious research.

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

The Propaganda Mill

What happens now if children grow up in a society that overtly teaches that homosexual partnering is not "just as good as" but actually is marriage?

Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.

Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models.

Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).

The propaganda mill will pound our children with homosexual marriage as a role model. We know this will happen because we have seen the fanatical Left do it many times before.

So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage."

They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."

Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

They will make it harder for us to raise children with any confidence that they, in turn, will take their place in the reproductive cycle. They will use all the forces of our society to try to encourage our children that it is desirable to be like them.

Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them. But for those parents who have kids who hover in confusion, their lives complicated by painful experiences, conflicting desires, and many fears, the P.C. elite will now demand that the full machinery of the state be employed to draw them away from the cycle of life.

Children from broken and wounded families, with missing parents, may be the ones most confused and most susceptible. Instead of society helping these children overcome the handicaps that come from a missing or dysfunctional father or mother, it may well be exacerbating the damage.

All the while, the P.C. elite will be shouting at dismayed parents that it is somehow evil and bigoted of them not to rejoice when their children commit themselves to a reproductive dead end.

But there is nothing irrational about parents grieving at the abduction-in-advance of their grandchildren.

Don't you see the absurd contradiction? A postulated but unproven genetic disposition toward homosexuality is supposed to be embraced and accepted by everyone as "perfectly natural" -- but the far stronger and almost universal genetic disposition toward having children and grandchildren is to be suppressed, kept to yourself, treated as a mental illness.

You're unhappy that your son wants to marry a boy? Then you're sick, dangerous, a homophobe, filled with hate. Control your natural desires or be branded as evil by every movie and TV show coming out of P.C. Hollywood!

Compassion and tolerance flow only one way in the "Wonderland" of the politically correct.

Loss of Trust

The proponents of this anti-family revolution are counting on most Americans to do what they have done through every stage of the monstrous social revolution that we are still suffering through -- nothing at all.

But that "nothing" is deceptive. In fact, the pro-family forces are already taking their most decisive action. It looks like "nothing" to the anti-family, politically correct elite, because it isn't using their ranting methodology.

The pro-family response consists of quietly withdrawing allegiance from the society that is attacking the family.

Would-be parents take part in civilization only when they trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce. Societies that create that trust survive; societies that lose it, disappear, one way or another.

But the most common way is for the people who have the most at stake -- parents and would-be parents -- to simply make the untrusted society disappear by ceasing to lift a finger to sustain it.

It is parents who have the greatest ability to transmit a culture from one generation to the next.

If parents stop transmitting the culture of the American elite to their children, and actively resist letting the schools and media do it in their place, then that culture will disappear.

If America becomes a place where the laws of the nation declare that marriage no longer exists -- which is what the Massachusetts decision actually does -- then our allegiance to America will become zero. We will transfer our allegiance to a society that does protect marriage.

We will teach our children to have no loyalty to the culture of the American elite, and will instead teach them to be loyal to a competing culture that upholds the family. Whether we home school our kids or not, we will withdraw them at an early age from any sense of belonging to contemporary American culture.

We're already far down that road. Already most parents regard schools -- an institution of the state that most directly touches our children -- as the enemy, even though we like and trust the individual teachers -- because we perceive, correctly, that schools are being legally obligated to brainwash our children to despise the values that keep civilization alive.

And if marriage itself ceases to exist as a legally distinct social union with protection from the government, then why in the world should we trust that government enough to let it have authority over our children?

They Think They Have the Power.

The politically correct elite think they have the power to make these changes, because they control the courts.

They don't have to consult the people, because the courts nowadays have usurped the power to make new law.

Democracy? What a joke. These people hate putting questions like this to a vote. Like any good totalitarians, they know what's best for the people, and they'll force it down our throats any way they can.

That's what the Democratic filibuster in the Senate to block Bush's judicial appointments is all about -- to keep the anti-family values of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in control of our government.

And when you add this insult onto the already deep injuries to marriage caused by the widespread acceptance of nonmonogamous behavior, will there be anything left at all?

Sure. In my church and many other churches, people still cling fiercely to civilized values and struggle to raise civilized children despite the barbarians who now rule us through the courts.

The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.

And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.

It is the most morally conservative portion of society that is most successful in raising children who believe in loyalty and oath-keeping and self-control and self-sacrifice.

And we're tired of being subject to barbarian rules and laws that fight against our civilized values. We're not interested in risking our children's lives to defend a nation that does not defend us.

Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies? Those who believe in the teachings of politically correct college professors? Or those who believe in the traditional values that the politically correct elite has been so successful in destroying?

Let's take a poll of our volunteer military -- especially those who specialize in combat areas -- and see what civilization it is that they actually volunteered to defend.

Since the politically correct are loudly unwilling to fight or die for their version of America, and they are actively trying to destroy the version of America that traditional Americans are willing to fight or die to defend, just how long will "America" last, once they've driven out the traditional culture?

Oh, it will still be called America.

But out of the old American mantras of "democracy" and "freedom" and "home" and "family," of "motherhood" and "apple pie," only the pie will be left.

And even if few people care enough to defend the old family values against the screaming hate speech of the Left -- which is what they're counting on, of course -- the end will be the same. Because with marriage finally killed, America will no longer be able to raise up children with any trust in or loyalty to or willingness to sacrifice for that society.

So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.

Remember how long Iraq's powerful military lasted against a determined enemy, when the Iraqi soldiers no longer had any loyalty to the Iraqi leadership. That wasn't an aberration. It's how great nations and empires fall.

Depriving us of any democratic voice in these sweeping changes may not lead to revolution or even resistance. But it will be just as deadly if it leads to despair. For in the crisis, few citizens will lift a finger to protect or sustain the elite that treated the things we valued -- our marriages, our children, and our right to self-government -- with such contempt.

Copyright © 2004 by Orson Scott Card.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

No power or influence can or should be maintained in the kingdom of God except by:
Persuasion. No public ultimatums or threats, no "negotiations," but rather privately offering a new idea with the desire that the other person receive it.
Long-suffering.Not giving up because our idea seems to be rejected at first. People change, and the idea that astonished them when they first heard it becomes sweeter to them over time.
Gentleness. Never using stridency, anger, or ridicule toward those we hope to influence.
Meekness. Always being willing to obey, even when your ideas aren't accepted.
Love unfeigned. Not merely pretending to support and sustain fellow Saints, but actually loving them, desiring their happiness, trusting their goodwill.
Kindness. Never using our words to injure another, or even to returnan injury we have received.
Pure knowledge. Seeking our own confirmation from the Holy Ghost before we presume to teach others, instead of immediately trusting in our own "neat ideas" or the teachings of the world.

Few of us have a calling that allows us to reprove anybody - and even fewer of us are moved by the Holy Ghost to do so. However, sometimes our ideas will seem to others to be a rebuke, and therefore we must be sure that we show them an increase in love, lest they esteem us to be their enemy.

---

p146.

I guess those principles apply only to those "within" the fold? And yet, later on, Mr. Card states (p196) that unless the doors of Zion are opened to all the world, we (I assume the Mormons) will never pass through that door themselves.

quote:

---

. . . they will find that Zion extends its love not only to the homebound child, but also to the returning prodigal; not only to the temple people, but also to the Samaritan; not only to the house of Israel, but also to the stranger, the Gentile. And not just to desirable immigrants bearing gifts, but also to the empty-handed.

---

I am not sure where the anger is coming from and I am having a very difficult time reconciling the book I finished reading this evening with the article just released.

*Sigh*

[ February 24, 2004, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Did OSC have a cow when the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?

quote:

---

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

---

quote:

---

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

---

quote:

---

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down.

---

quote:

---

If trust between the sexes breaks down, then males who are able will revert to the broadcast strategy of reproduction, while females will begin to compete for males who already have female mates.

---

quote:

---

We will once again be performing a potentially devastating social experiment on ourselves without any attempt to predict the consequences and find out if the American people actually want them.

---

quote:

---

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

---

quote:

---

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.

---

quote:

---

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse

---

quote:

---

Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

---

quote:

---

The politically correct elite think they have the power to make these changes, because they control the courts.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

Says who! One of your many homosexual friends? "Gee Scott, I'd love to be straight, but the big-bad evil gay people have brainwashed me. Won't you help me?" This sort of statement belongs in a Jack Chick tract, not an essay by an intelligent author. And please don't say that you have homosexual friends. They might be polite to you, and maybe talk about the game on Sunday, but nobody who's happiness depends on having relationships with people of the same sex is going to be friends with someone who could make that statement. Plus, it makes you sound like all the racists who claim "one of my best friends is black".

And why use the political opinions of the military to support your argument? Is that really your bastion of morality? As much as I "support our troops", they generally aren't the most educated or forward thinking individuals. It strikes me as something GWB would say to make it unpatriotic to oppose him. Those great folks in Iraq are against gay marriage, so gee, we should be too.

In all those statements, you don't bring up that God is against gay marriage. That's interesting, in that its the only argument that holds up for more than half a page on any of the dozens of homosexuality threads we've had here.

There are literally no secular arguments against it. None. You use the "we don't have enough information" argument thats surfaced here, but come on now, no amount of research or experience in other countries is going to convince you. Your religion says its wrong, so its wrong. Admitting that at least makes me respect the argument. You say that the Mass. supreme court doesn't consider the social costs, but perhaps that's because they couldn't think of any to consider?

Would it really be the end of the world if one of your children told you that they are gay? If its because of "not taking their place in the reproductive cycle", would it bother you the same if one was barren? And if you don't accept them for who they are, then yes, you are a bigot. Just as anyone who disowned their child for marrying out of their race 40 years ago. We can creep around that word as much as we want, but at some point, there's no other word that fits. If you can label me a "PC elite" or a member of the "fanatical left", then I feel quite comfortable using derogatory labels in the other direction.

My favorite is where you say that they have the same rights as everyone else, as they can also marry those of the opposite sex. Tres used this same argument not a week ago, and it fails no matter how you present it. They don't have the right to marry the person they are disposed to be sexually attracted to. If I did not have that right, I would fight tooth and nail to get it. Imagine if it was against the law to marry women, and perhaps you can imagine how it feels for them. Its only as "equal" as a law stating that everyone must write with only their right hands. Not so equal for those who are left handed.

Well, there are about three dozen other statements and "points" I'd love to attack, but I don't have all night.

To me this is the last gasp of a dying position. Homosexuals will get marriage rights eventually, and no amount of half-formed logical arguments are going to change that.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I love Hatrack. No, really. Just when I'm thinking to leave, you guys write some fabulous things that drive me to stay.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...has certainly proved true over here at Hatrack.

---

quote:

---

They don't have the right to marry the person they are disposed to be sexually attracted to.

---

And it's not only about sexual attraction ! I mean, I knew I was heterosexual before I met Vinnie, even if I was still a virgin, and before I wouldn't have fight to marry any man, but Vinnie is not only the man I'm sexually attracted by, he's the man I love and want to live with all my life ! We're getting married in 10 weeks and I would fight hard to have the right to do it if I hadn't, because it's about love and love is a gift, hetero or homosexual.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
No arguments here Anna. Its much more than sexual.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I wasn't trying to argue. And it's quite confunded anyway. I mean, I know I couldn't fall in love with a woman, because sex is an important part of love. But only part If you want to have sex with someone, you don't need to marry him/her ! If you want to live with him/her your all life if possible, and be a couple in the eyes of the law and the society (maybe of God, but that's another question) then you need to have the right to marry.
I'm not sure I'm clear on this one.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Are there studies (heh, legitimate studies) out there that prove that children raised by only one parent are more screwed up and that it's because of that lack, rather than post or prior class and economic status?

I mean, I grew up seeing little to none of my father, and all it made me was more honest with, closer to, and more respectful of women. Is this not enough? Do I need to learn the joys of lite beer, leaving the toilet seat up, and belching?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um... exactly what has any heterosexual couple done to "earn" a real marriage? Did OSC storm the beaches of Normandy on D-Day to protect this sacred right or something?

---

To earn it, you must be or make an effort to become attracted to the opposite sex, apparently. Perhaps he's overcome strong homosexual tendencies to lead a "normal" life.

quote:

---

The dark secret of the religious-- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how few homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse

---

quote:

---

just how long will "America" last, once they've driven out the traditional culture?

---

Like I always say: As American as baseball, apple pie, and heterosexual sex.

America would be so much better if the slaves were still out in the fields picking cotton and if tobacco were still our biggest export.

Honestly, are there any traditions in America that last longer than a few generations? Sara Lee makes most of our pie these days, baseball is now played for money, and, dare I say, missionary is hardly the position of choice anymore, even among the religious.

America's traditions are freedom, tolerance, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree, Xav, and I'm glad--this seems like the dying gasp of the self-proclaimed moral majority.
 

---

Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
 
I usually try to stay away from topics such as these because I have a hard time getting my point across in the first place, let alone the fact that I am not well-read enough to back myself up with actual data.

I definitely disagree with many things that OSC wrote. However, upon stepping back and looking at the essay as a whole, it seems to me that the ultimate point that he's trying to make is that recognizing homosexual marriage will not solve all the "problems" that the proponents think it will. From my largely ignorant point of view, I compare the homosexual marriage debate to other such controversies as affirmative action or abortion.

From what I understand, affirmative action was supposed to give opportunities to members minority groups who otherwise would have been passed over due to a company's traditions, however outdated. Personally, I think affirmative action just perpetuates racism. I am also one who believes that any person of any race who is against any other race for whatever reason is racist.

The questions I'm asking myself about homosexual marriage (anyone who knows the answers, feel free to enlighten me) are a)what exactly is the proposal--for the government to legally recognize applications of marriage between same-sex partners? b)If "a" is yes, then why? What are the problems that homosexual marriage would solve?

How this relates to affirmative action in my mind is, by granting the proposal, could the government end up tipping the scale the other way, and how bad would it be? I'm currently not for or against homosexual marriage, largely because I don't know enough about it, but is it possible that by going through with the law, those that it's meant to appease could be shooting themselves in the foot?

Another personal observation: I think the idea that a textbook family (Mom, Dad, 2.5 kids) being the best is a load of crap. Maybe I dont' know what I'm talking about since I don't have kids, but I don't see why a single parent or same-sex parents can't effectively raise a child. The key is to educate, and the number one lesson should be different isn't always wrong. Disagreement is a major source of conflict. I know that sounds like one of Leno's headlines, but give me a second. I'm talking about disagreement that arises from a separate set of beliefs (not necessarily religious). Simply, one person saying to another "You don't agree with me, therefore, you're wrong," never considering for one moment that they might be the one that's wrong. People in general need to do a whole lot more walking in other people's shoes.

Now, abortion is a black and white issue. It is the question of whether life begins at conception or not. Find me a pro-lifer who thinks it's ok to abort a pregnancy within the first trimester, and I'll concede. Again, I'm not taking sides, just making a statement. I don't see homosexual marriage as a black and white issue. First of all, someone needs to unequivocally define marriage. Is it what the church says or the government? Can the government say, "well, we say it's ok for homosexuals to marry, but we're not going to force religions to participate." So how does it work for same-sex couples who are "spiritual"? I better stop before I say something really stupid and try to find my may point.

I agree that, whatever the homosexual marriage proposal is truly about, all aspects of it need to be seriously considered by every side--for the good of everyone.

I also agree that OSC's essay is perhaps misguided. But I can't justify lambasting him for stating his opinions, even if he presented them as fact, when all I've got to back up my disagreement is my own opinion.

Or something like that.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Do the courts have the legal imperative, and the legal right, to make the social proclamations they are making? Or should such reform be left to the lawmakers who are elected by the people, and who are answerable to them?
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I guess it comes down to whether or not you think that the majority is above the spirit and ideals of the Constitution.

Sometime, I think it can be. But in this case, we can give the minority rights without having to take anything away from the majority (besides some hurt feelings). Seems like a no-brainer.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Who decides when majority rules?

When can minority rights be held above generally accepted socio-cultural practices?

Is marriage a right? Why should it be? What benefits does a marriage sanctioned by the state EXCLUSIVELY provide that no other institution can? Why are those benefits considered so important to civilization that their regulation is required by government?

[ February 24, 2004, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Did the second half of this essay remind anyone else of Atlas Shrugged, albeit with a wildly different spin?

I'm pretty sure the collective apathy of people for anything more than the immediate concerns of getting through the day can hardly be over-estimated. In some ways, this is unsettling, as it makes needed change much more difficult. In some ways, it is reassuring, as the machinery of change moves very slowly.

Really, it does. There are grand gestures at the high level, and large changes do affect lives, but the amount of effect on individual lives is generally quite small, although widespread.

A given civilization is unlikely to collapse because some members won't participate. Hopefully, a strong civilization can encourage the diversity of small groups in its midst. I think it's great that the LDS Church is active and vocal, and there is so much to be respected in its message.

But the US society will collapse from within because some people home-school or attend private facilities? That tips over into ranting, and it devalues the considerations raised to begin with.

[ February 24, 2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Actually I think he was saying that home schooling would help stop the collapse.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hobbes, I read the last part quite differently.

quote:

---

The pro-family response consists of quietly withdrawing allegiance from the society that is attacking the family.
...

We will teach our children to have no loyalty to the culture of the American elite, and will instead teach them to be loyal to a competing culture that upholds the family. Whether we home school our kids or not, we will withdraw them at an early age from any sense of belonging to contemporary American culture.
...

And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.
...

And even if few people care enough to defend the old family values against the screaming hate speech of the Left -- which is what they're counting on, of course -- the end will be the same. Because with marriage finally killed, America will no longer be able to raise up children with any trust in or loyalty to or willingness to sacrifice for that society.

So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.

---

It's almost Marxist in the line of argument: that the "PC society" has within itself the seeds of its own collapse. Interesting. I wonder if that was a conscious echo?
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
You're right, I phrased it poorly, he said that home-schooling was a good thing to do, but it would still let the collapse continue.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

[Atlas Shrugged's] main protagonists, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, are capitalist-minded industrialists, "Atlases" who carry the collapsing national economy on their backs. Things change, however, when the mysterious John Gait begins a revolution against the existing order, believing that the parasitic society would destroy itself if its competent and hardworking members would simply stop working. But first, the protagonists must learn how to let go of the ties of obligation, responsibility, and guilt connecting them to the abusive community in all aspects of their lives.
-- from the eNotes essay on Atlas Shrugged

---

[ February 24, 2004, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hobbes, likely OSC would argue that the "PC society" isn't a civilization in the truest sense of the world, and civilization is what would be restored after the collapse of the "PC society." So your interpretation makes sense, from that perspective.

But -- and I mean no disrespect -- this has been claimed so many times before, and still society continues. And we have a whole world of examples around us which give other options than the one of collapse from within without a religious foundation.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK, I've asked this question before, and to date only 2 or 3 people have answered it. And none of those people have been the ones whose rhetoric makes me suspicious of the answer.

Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

There was a reason why I didn't read that article! That honestly hurt!
Just some incoherent thoughts:
It's not two men or two women that hurts marriage. Yesterday I watched yet another show about people getting "married" and mocking the system and the vows. That hurts it a lot worse. When people are casual and irresponsible about it. When they show no regard for commitment! Like all these who wants to marry a millionaire or drunk Vegas wedding sort of things. It's like wanting a toy very badly and watching someone melt it in the microwave...
For example, my friend Jan would have loved to marry the woman she had been with for 2 years before she died. It would have meant so much to her. She would have VALUED marriage. Not mocked it!
And what he said about gay men marrying women and women marrying men when they are gay is a load of crap... That's the most horrible suggestion! That does a ton more damage than letting people be themselves. Then letting people just...
gra... the comtemp in this article... it's too frustrating and too early in the morning to write a clear rebuttal..
that hurt... it's like every single argument i've seen used against me over the years by relatives and people on the net rolled into one vicious and venimous article.
i knew i shouldn't have read that...
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Dag, that question deserves its own thread (at the risk of encouraging the proliferation of homosexuality threads ). My gut instinct is no, it does not, but then I start to wonder what exactly a bigot is. IIRC, Bob made a somewhat compelling argument that it did. But then I start to wonder if a bigot simply means "someone I disagree with." I suspect your asking the question in order to decide whether or not to take offense. That's not my situation, but I'd like to see your question discussed because it's one I'm not sure the answer to.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Dagonee - from my personal veiw, holding that opinion does not make that person a bigot. Acting on that opinion, or using that opinion as a basis to discriminate against people does.

For example: I personally, do not believe in many facets of the Catholic Church. I think some of the doctrine is plain wrong, dangerous and clearly immoral.

That doesn't make me a bigot. However if I said that Catholics should not be allowed to practice their faith (or even just those aspects of their faith I don't agree with) because of that belief that would make me a bigot.

In terms of homosexuality: I understand that many people by virtue of their religion think homosexuality is a sin. That is a view I don't agree with, but not one I would call bigotry.

However if those same people use that belief as a basis to deny homosexual people rights or equality, or even to denigrate them (ie name calling, hate speech etc) then that would be bigoted.

I guess my views are: believe what you want. Just don't impose your beliefs on other people.

[ February 24, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Syn-- I think that if you will calmly go back and re-read OSC's essay, you will note that he is NOT encouraging homosexuals to marry hetero.

He is furthering the point that the term 'marriage' means one thing-- a socially recognized union between a man and a woman, open to all people as, and only as, such.

Saying that 'Lots of homosexuals have been in heterosexual marriages,' is completely different than saying 'Homosexuals should marry heterosexuals so they can be cured.'

In other words, OSC's not debating a cure-- he's debating terminology.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
As an afterthought...

In my earlier post, I used the word bigot.

I didn't use this because OSC doesn't agree with homosexual behaviour.

I used it because he used a gross generalisation to denigrate all homosexuals based on what he disapproved of.

So, to my earlier analogy: disagreeing with aspects of Catholicism is not bigoted.

Saying lots of Catholics are only that way because they were raped (forcibly converted? baptised against their will?) and that all Catholics are abnormal is bigoted.

edit - tricky missing s

[ February 24, 2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Scott - you are right.

However, I think the veiw goes slightly beyond terminology.

Why? Arguing that all people have a right to marriage, as long as they marry someone from the opposite sex means that hetrosexual people have a right to marry someone they love. Homosexual people don't.

Most people (and churches) define marriage as a union between two people based on love. Given this, homosexual people do not have an equal right to marriage. The fact they can marry someone that they are not sexually attracted to does not mitigate the fact that their sexual status is not given equal recognition.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

Why? Arguing that all people have a right to marriage, as long as they marry someone from the opposite sex means that hetrosexual people have a right to marry someone they love. Homosexual people don't.

---

quote:

---

Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.

---

quote:

---

I suspect your asking the question in order to decide whether or not to take offense.

---

Actually, I'm asking the question to decide whether it's worth discussing this topic any more, at least with certain people.

I've been very discouraged by the tone of certain people on this board concerning this and some other topics. Not vigorous debate or vigorous opposition, which I like, but the swooping into a thread, posting a "fact" which 2 seconds on Google proves false, and then never acknowledging the mistake or defending the original assertion as correct.

On this topic, there are people who either react shrilly, making no attempt to understand the other side and people who swoop in and make astounding judgments about both the motiviations and character of people on the other side of the issue.

I don't have time to reply to the others right now, but thanks for your answers. None of you who answered were the people I'm worried about, but it's good to hear.

Thanks,

Dagonee

P.S., "Most people (and churches) define marriage as a union between two people based on love." This is simply not true with respect to churches. Few of them I know of hold such simplistic definitions.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Ok, let me clarify that - all the religious marriage vows that I know of have, as one of the reasons for/aspects of marriage, love.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
True - that I can agree with.

Dagonee
P.S., I only commented on that because of another discussion that seems to be centered on the difficulties of accepting a multi-faceted religion.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I try to look at the other side... I understand that many people regard being gay or gay acts as a sin.
But this really doesn't hold much water when you look at individual people
It's easy to say, homosexuality is sinful and wrong and leads to the fall of society if you are looking at an entire group of people who seem to, on the surface go against everything you believe in...
But then there is the opposite effect. Knowing that a person that I am talking to or care about regards gayness as some horrible sin and still caring about them, still talking to them and being silent about at least half of myself not wanting to go into this tired exausting argument again.
I'm seriously tired of it.. Nothing is going to change. All OSC is doing is using these same tired arguments-men and women are different, gays being allowed to be gay leads to the downfall of society.
It's ridiculous. Society has been spiralling downward for centuries. It hasn't been because of gayness either.
Mmy views is that society should be about the threads between humanity. Between husbands and wives and couples in love and children and grandparents.
But it should also include gay people as well. What really damages society is instead of people being loyal to say, their children or best friends they cut them away because they are gay. Because their religion said to.
How does that make society better? Isolating people just because they won't join some ex-gay group, suppress their desire and live a lie basically.
To me it's five thousand times worse to have groups of self-hating gays and lesbians out there instead of embracing what they are and realizing it's not bad or evil or wrong.
Note, that I have not thrown around words like bigot and the like (well, to my knowledge) in my arguments.
I'm reminded of pictures I've seen of lynchings. Men women and children standing there while some man was hung from a tree.
These are so-called law abiding citizens that go to church and follow the rules and still they manage to convince themselves that it is not evil and horrible to hang a man over skin colour. That it's their civic duty somehow.
To me this isn't much different because folks just can't see that saying gayness is a sin or that gay people are going to hell leads to the sort of cruelty that makes people beat up people for being gay.
What hurts the must... what kills me the most is when people who have these sort of views are nice people and not like Fred Phelps or people like Snotnose punk and Billy Bob i'd argue with on the CWFA forum.
It hurts even more if it's someone like Orson Scott Card who I don't always agree with, but I respect.
After all, his book Seventh Son helped shape my paradigm.
But when he talks like this it hurts... It's like an open wound...
It really hurts a lot.
It's not about arguments, the church or religion.
It's human beings I care about! IT's people who have been told all their lives that their desires are wrong and dirty and evil and as a result become depressed and beyond down...
It just isn't right... There was a time when people used to use church doctrine to excuse things like slavery... or treating women like they are less than human...
I know it's a lame argument but it just isn't right.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 

quote:

---

Non-Catholics can still marry, but only if they become Catholic.

---

quote:

---

quote:Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

Neither was Michael Jackson's marriage to what's-her-name,

---

quote:

---

Is marriage a right? Why should it be?

---

quote:

---

men and women are different, gays being allowed to be gay leads to the downfall of society.

---

quote:

---

Society has been spiralling downward for centuries. It hasn't been because of gayness either.

---

quote:

---

But it should also include gay people as well. What really damages society is instead of people being loyal to say, their children or best friends they cut them away because they are gay. Because their religion said to.

---

quote:

---

How does that make society better? Isolating people just because they won't join some ex-gay group, suppress their desire and live a lie basically.

---

quote:

---

To me it's five thousand times worse to have groups of self-hating gays and lesbians out there instead of embracing what they are and realizing it's not bad or evil or wrong.

---

quote:

---

To me this isn't much different because folks just can't see that saying gayness is a sin or that gay people are going to hell leads to the sort of cruelty that makes people beat up people for being gay.

---

OK, now I'm confused. It seems that the rest of your post accuses people like OSC as being as bad as KKK lynch mobs... I hope I'm misreading.

Hobbes

[ February 24, 2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Synesthesia,

You're response makes it clear you have not understood the other side of this issue. Your post is filled with the worst stereotypes of how Christians treat homosexuals today. I'm sure you can point to concrete examples for each of those. Yet those engaging in the stereotyping of homosexuals can point to concrete examples of each of their stereotypes.

And saying Christians who think homosexual actions are sinful do not care about human beings is painting with an awfully broad brush. I've desperately tried to convey this in other threads to little or no success - acknowledging the sinfulness of another's actions can be an act of love. Not the way it was done in this article nor in those demonstrations people like to post about. But nonetheless, saying "What you are doing is wrong and it's bad for you" can absolutely be an act of love.

Just as it would be unfair to judge homosexuals by the actions of ACT-UP or by those who do engage in the stereotypical promiscuous gay activities, so is it wrong to judge all those who think homosexual actions are sinful by the actions of the people you described in your post.

Dagonee
*I'm really late for class now!
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Are there studies (heh, legitimate studies) out there that prove that children raised by only one parent are more screwed up and that it's because of that lack, rather than post or prior class and economic status?

---

quote:

---

The children Wallerstein studied were more likely to struggle with drugs, alcohol, and sex. Fully half the children she studied were involved in serious abuse of alcohol and drugs, some as early as age 14. And they tended to become sexually active early, particularly the girls.

---

quote:

---

For the first time, using a comparison group of adults who grew up in the same communities, Wallerstein shows how adult children of divorce essentially view life differently from their peers raised in intact homes where parents also confronted marital difficulties but decided on balance to stay together.

---

quote:

---

It seems that the rest of your post accuses people like OSC as being as bad as KKK lynch mobs... I hope I'm misreading.

---

You're misreading if you think that by my posts. I think it's a question that makes rising a lot of passions, and the words go farer than the thought. Of course OSC is not as bad as one of the KKK. He doesn't propose to kill homosexuals. But I don't think that any of his arguments to prevent them to marry the person they love is correct. And the insinuation about sex abuse was quite filthy.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Anna, I was quoting Syn there, not you.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

Because the other side is that homosexuality is a choice.

---

Hobbes - I'm curious about this. (And this is my first time even mildly disagreeing with you)

Given there is no conclusive scientific evidence either way (I think what there is is weighted towards homosexuality being genetic) *how* can the other side mantain 'homosexuality is a choice?'

Two things here:

Firstly - Wouldn't you have to be homosexual to know? I mean, how can a heterosexual person with no experience of being gay say it's a choice?

Secondly - Doesn't this line of reasoning imply that heterosexuality is *also* a choice? That you, me and every other straight person on this thread could be gay if we wanted to?

So, at risk of being blunt, could you work hard and be attracted to guys instead? I'm guessing the answer is no - and not just because of your religion. Because you're just not. It's the way you are.

{edit: i liked this idea so I started a thread about it... but it's a heterosexuality thread this time }

[ February 24, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I am not comparing OSC to a KKK lynch mob. I am saying that certain ideas dehumanize a person enough to lead to whatever makes a person want to lynch someone.
I really need to either retire completely from this argument or find a way to more clearly express things... *frustrated*
There's just so much I don't agree with, like I really don't see men and women as complete strangers... there are variations...
grah.. *Worn out*
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Actually, my answer would be yes, I could. Providing that I would want to be homosexual...

I wasn't even necessarily agreeing with the idea that "homosexuality is a choice" (nor disagreeing), meerly pointing out that this is what the side oppsite from Syn thinks, and that should they be right then it's an entirley different, and logically sound, view.

What I think is actually a lot more complex than choice/not choice, and should I try to explain it I'm afraid it would yield yet another Cousin Hobbes thread...

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Okay, without even getting into the homosexual side of the argument (because we have already done this enough times in other threads that we already know where everyone here stands on the issue), I do want to address what I thought was the first and most prominent part of OSC's essay.

quote:

---

Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society

---

quote:

---

Researchers found children of single-parent households were at an increased risk for suicide or suicide attempts, mental illness, injury, and addiction. After adjusting for factors such as socioeconomic status, and parents' addictions or mental disease, children of single-parent households were twice as likely as children of two-parent households to attempt suicide, to have a mental illness, or to have an alcohol-related disease. Girls living in single-parent homes had a threefold increased risk for narcotic abuse and boys of single-parent homes had a fourfold increased risk of narcotic abuse than children of two-parent homes. SOURCE: The Lancet, 2003;361:289-295

---

 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Hobbes, I know you were quoting Syn, but I though the last part of your post was adressed to all people not agreeing with OSC in this thread. My mistake.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Huh. You know Hobbes, I didn't figure that to be your answer.

Teach me to try and second guess people. Especially tigers.

Anyhow, I did start a thread on the topic, so feel free to post your Cousin Hobbes view to it.

I still think it's a valid idea, because I suspect a lot of people who believe it is a choice would not be comfertable with the idea of them hypothetically 'choosing' homosexuality.

But - as a more personal example: I love Tony with all my heart. I could not 'choose' to be homosexual not only because I am not interested in girls, but because the person I love is a man. Simple as that.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
imogen
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
More than abortion or any other issue, I think this debate has the potential to rip this nation apart.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
The MA SJC justices (all but one Repubilcan appointees) ruled on a very concrete piece on the MA Constitution, taking into account any precedents.

quote:

---

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

---

quote:

---

However, now they have taken that duty and distorted it into vast powers that give them the right to dictate law!

---

I don't think, in this case, they are dictating new laws.

The question IS over a matter of interpretation - interpretation of the term marriage and interpretation of rather-vague equality laws in state constitutions. When we passed amendments stating the government must treat all citizens equally, we handed the courts the responsibility to make these sorts of decisions.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
What Tres said. The Courts _have_ to rule on some laws, especially if a law conflicts with the constitution. Which it was judged to be in this case. In fact, the SJC didn't WRITE any new law, it told the state legislature it had 6 months to come up with a law that clarified and admitted same-sex marriages into the definition of the state civil marriage statutes. When the Senate asked for clarification on what sort of laws were allowed, the SJC said civil unions wouldn't cut it, since it has been shown in our country/state that every time separate but equal has been proposed, the results have only gotten it half right. Which is a fair opinion, I think, though I may not have gone that way (even though I am for civil recognition of gay marriage).

Of course, if an amendment is passed, it will make this all moot, one way or another.

Just don't blame the SJC for "legislating from the bench", they ruled that a current law/set of laws was incompatible with the state constitution, and delegated the actual fixing of it to the legislature.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Anna - that was my first .


 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
And in terms of Courts and interpretation and law-making...

The US is a common law nation. Part of that is courts *do* make law. This has been part of your laws since settlement. Hey, common law was what first established native title under Chief Justice Marshall - absolute law making, but legally so and one of the most respected judges in the history of common law nations.

Not only that, but under the seperation of powers doctrine, the Courts have every right and duty to reveiw legislature. Where it is illegal, they have the absolute power to overturn it.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Of course, the whole "legislating from the bench" argument ignores the fact that there's a really easy way to stop these "runaway judges". Don't enforce the law. If the people care that much, they can ignore it.

Heck, Andrew Jackson did it.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Hello celia, what are you doing on a serious thread?

I don't know. Shedding a few tears because someone just ripped my childhood from me and used it to damn me to support his own agenda.

quote:

---

Huge numbers of children are deprived of two-parent homes, because society has decided to give legal status and social acceptance to out-of-wedlock parenting and couples who break up their marriages with little regard for what is good for the children.

The result is a generation of children with no trust in marriage who are mating in, at best, merely "marriage-like" patterns, and bearing children with no sense of responsibility to society at large; while society is trying to take on an ever greater role in caring for the children who are suffering -- while doing an increasingly bad job of it.

---

I've just had my marriage declared a sham over my morning cup of coffee. How's everyone elses day going?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
(((((ceila))))))

Did I mention I didn't agree with the article? I, as a random stranger, believe in your marriage..

You did bring up a very valid point: the bias (and, indeed, bigotry) inherent in it isn't just against homosexual couples.

And yes, I'd consider that quote justifying the B-word.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
As a side note, I think it's very inaccurate to try and portray the current generation of children as poorly raised. In my view, the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction, and has the opposite trend - upwards.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
celia, whatever your views on this, don't interpret a statement about a broad category of people to which you belong as refering specifically to you. Statistically, people in your situation have troubled marriages later in life. It's no affront to you to say it.

I have this same problem when arguing against teen sex. There's always the bright guy who comes along and says "yeah but not ALL teens are emotionally incapable of dealing with sex" to which I reply "big whoop, dude... I'm speaking in general terms, majority of teens, más de cincuenta porciento, ¿captas?"
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
On the contrary, that kind of generalisation does suggest that *every* child raised in a single parent family will have a screwed up marriage.

If you want to say 'the statisical majority' than say so. And back it up. Don't make generalisations, because they will be taken personally.

And if OSC didn't mean to make a generalisation: that is, if he believes there is an irrefutable and unavoidable causal link between single parent families and 'sham' marriages, then Ceila has every right to be angry and upset.

Edited to add an important if.

[ February 24, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

Beren: Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not taking OSC's side on this issue, nor am I saying that your response was poorly written. But I don't think this is the best analogy you could have come up with.

---

Agreed. That's what happens when I write angry posts at 2:00 in the morning.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
*hugs Celia*
I know the feeling... I am still aching over that article for some reason...
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
I'm sorry, David, but I don't see them as being the same at all. Reguardless of what I think about teens having sex, there's an element of choice. I certainly didn't choose to be a child of divorce, which is what I am being condemned for.

Shit, I'm supposed to be teaching class in 20 minutes. Any suggestions for getting rid of red eyes? (Aside from stick to fluff.)
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Umm... teabags? (cold, of course).

Cucumber slices.

(both work - but not as well as a gel eye mask kept in the fridge - I have one - wanna borrow?)

A good splash with cold cold water - this always helps me.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Give your students a quiz and watch them scurry like roaches.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Celia, I look at it this way - most people who are children of divorce do struggle harder to maintain committed healthy marriages than do their counterparts who were raised with two parents in a healthy marrige.

The simple fact is I didn't have a healthy relationship to model. At first I was the child of a single mom who had to work all the time to keep us fed, then she was married to someone that I feared and who subjected me to verbal and emotional abuse.

It's quite logical that I'd have a harder time with marriage than my husband, who was raised by two people that loved each other and their kids very much, and it was obvious to the kids. All three of them will tell you their parents weren't perfect, but they always knew they were loved.

The fact that I do have a strong marriage is actually a complement to me. The decks were stacked against me and I've beaten the odds because I love my husband and I'm committed and I'm willing to do the work required.

Your marriage is no sham, dear. And neither is mine.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Sounds like an interesting book, Belle. Seeing as I'm going to B&N instead of sleeping today, maybe I'll read a bit.

I agree that kids from single parent households have it harder. I'm just wondering how much of it is from their lack of supervieion rather than lack of father/mother figure.

Because I think homosexual couples make good parents, from my anecdotal experience.

And I'll join the "raised by single parent and not screwed up" camp with Belle and celia.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
oh, and (((Celia)))

I didn't particularly care for that either.

We did not choose to be kids of divorce, and we didn't have any control over the situation. But, we internalize guilt and all sorts of other feelings even so. It's really, really sad.

To have someone say that we can't have healthy relationships - and we can't turn out kids with any sense of responsibility - it does feel like a slap.

So, if anyone's keeping score, you can add me to the list of people who were hurt by at least something in that essay.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'm sorry...
I sort of wish people would go back to extended families or something.I was raised mostly by my grandmother because my mother and father were not together.
I didn't blame myself for it. My mother was... i didn't know where and my father was around but not that parental.
I think I turned out ok and can totally be in a healthy relationship.
It just depends... It's hard to be a single parent and most of the time people don't really make that choice. It just happens.
I feel sad for a woman who has to work so hard to provide for her kids that she doesn't always get to be with them. It's hard when you have jobs that won't give you sick leave or take days off when you need them and a lot of people find themselves in that perdicument.
Which is why the whole system really does have to change. IT's part of a larger problem.
And as for divorce... It's hard to decide which is worse: divorcing or staying married and being miserable and the kids picking up on that.
Either way a person can't really win... They can just do the best they can.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
*raises hand*

Me, too. And my marriage is among the strongest I know of, thank you very much. Is it EASY to have a good marriage for over a decade? I don't think it's EVER easy for anyone. Period. It takes committment and caring. Having a strong marriage as a model probably helps, but damn .

MY marriage is also not threatened by the proliferation of convenience marriages, and it certainly won't be troubled by gay ones.

If my marriage has trouble, it's my fault and my husband's, not our parents', not society's, and it sure as heck doesn't have SQUAT to do with Adam and Steve. Nyah. So there!
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
*thinks Olivet is so cool*
ALL relationships take hard work and commitment. Whether it's marriage or a common law relationship. Whatever.
It takes resisting temptation when you begin to stray in mind and in body.
IT takes a lot of communication.
I understand this even though I am ignorant.
If people want to rail about something they should rail about how so many stupid shows out there act like it's so cool to be casual about relationships with people. That's a lot more harmful...
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
imogen

quote:

---

To suggest that homosexual people and couples by virtue of their sexual orientation live 'abnormally' is quite insulting and, at risk of being attacked for using the word, bigoted.

---

This is where the ability of our society to examine and debate this issue rationally breaks down — when one side insists that the other side cannot say certain things because to say them is inherently bigoted, and indicts the motives of the speaker. Note that Card did not use the word "abnormal". That word has gained a pejorative connotation that is totally out of proportion to the word he DID use, "normal". He is suggesting by that word that there is a "normal" way for humans to experience reproductive desire, and he cites heterosexuality as being that "normal" way, among many reasons, because it is reproductively relevant. That statement alone doesn't say that people who feel compelled to pursue other experiences are "bad" ... only that they are different from the norm.

Here's my question ... why have you chosen to focus your accusations of bigotry on this statement, of all the potentially offensive statements in the essay, when all it says is that homosexuals are different? I didn't think that being different was an inherently bad thing. I think it should be possible to cite that someone's lifestyle, actions, appearance, culture, or whatever, is "different", "unique", and even "unusual" without that statement being construed as a horrid offense. I mean, being a Mormon makes OSC all of those things, and it doesn't seem to bother him at all. He has never stated that being different is wrong — only that this particular difference doesn't warrant a change in our marriage laws. Address that. Not the fact that he dares to cite a difference.

I realize, by the way, that you may have rethought your specific use of the word bigot ... so my main beef isn't with your use of the word, but where you used it

Lalo

quote:

---

But damn, the logical fallacies, the hatred, the paranoia abound

---

quote:

---

To earn it, you must be or make an effort to become attracted to the opposite sex, apparently. Perhaps he's overcome strong homosexual tendencies to lead a "normal" life.

---

You're such a clever little kid. What he DID do was watch several of his friends struggle with homosexuality in the seventies. For some, it was a permanent lifestyle choice. For others, a passing phase or a temporary worry. For still others, a reason to leave their wives and small children. He's seen the light, dark, and not-talked-about sides of this issue through personal experience, and feels he has something to say about it, particularly when the party line on homosexuality doesn't satisfactorily explain or account for much of the evidence he's seen. You're also free to disagree with him.

While I personally worry a lot about this issue, I don't feel competent to go as far with it as my father has. Still, I can say that many of the reactions here are WAY out of proportion to his offenses. Calm down, I'm not the child of the anti-Christ
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Heh heh. Debate moved beyond my post before I was done making it ...
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
celia, I didn't mean your situation was the same... I mean that any insistence that "outliers" disprove the mean is a bit foolish.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I'm sorry you didn't get that I was joking, Geoff, but that's no need to get patronizing. I'll admit that I don't come off as mature online as I really am, but your, what, one year on me doesn't give you a free pass to be patting me on the head.

Really--all I ever see you talking about on Hatrack are video games.

Just because you're my friend's brother and the boss-man's son doesn't make you any less obnoxious.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

[edit: holy crap! quite possibly the first your/you're mixup of my Hatrack career. *hands over badge and gun*]

[ February 24, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess my views are: believe what you want. Just don't impose your beliefs on other people.

---

quote:

---

For still others, a reason to leave their wives and small children.

---

If gay people are allowed to get married, wouldn't these kind of things happen less often?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Dog...

I guess I did equate Card's view of homosexuality being not normal to homosexuality being abnormal.

But, to my defence, the reason I did that was that the essay does *not* espouse Card's religous veiws. It did not, in my reading at least, overtly state that reproduction is a divine right, duty or privilege. So I saw the definition of 'normal' as not being backed up by religion, but by some social norm, or standard.

And that's what I took to task. Not that it was 'different'.

Plus which - in that paragraph - I still do find it mind boggling plus offensive the claims of rape and molestation leading to homosexuality.

If I said that being Mormon was not only not 'normal', but that many people were introduced to Mormonism by force, coercion and 'disturbing seduction' and secretly longed to join the normal world - I would expect most LDS members to take offence. And with good reason.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I knew you were joking, Frisco. There are two forces at work here.

1. Some people have said that very thing about my father in all seriousness, while picketing his book signings. You probably didn't know that, but it can be very hurtful.

2. The fact that you're my sister's friend doesn't make you less annoying, either I usually tolerate your campaign of distributing cute comments to every thread on the board to show off how witty you are, while avoid adding anything of substance, but when you take it to this point, the annoyance factor becomes a bit too much. You write as though your greatest priority is to make yourself look clever, and I'd rather that a few other considerations were higher on your list.

But I mean all that in the nicest way possible
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Hey, I write what I write. If it makes me look clever in your eyes, so be it. I doubt I'm thought of as clever on this board, nor do I lose any sleep over that fact. I write for my own amusement first and foremost.

As for saying I write nothing of substance, I'd say "nothing" is a bit of an exaggeration. I am serious at times, though I do admit to spending more of my Hatrack time unwinding from my serious life.

If you like, I'll find someone with an Xbox and play a few games and give you some reviews containing this so-called "substance".
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
So I guess people are going to drop most of the "legislate from the bench" angles, now that I've given a little context? Or is it being ignored since I have a public bias that is coloring my description of the situation?

If it isn't either of these cases, then it appears everyone here is much more interested in arguing in the abstract, than dealing with the case at hand.

Geoff: My girlfriend knows plenty of healthy, long-lasting gay relationships, and well-adjusted single gays. They struggled, but obviously not to the hurtful extent OSC perceived his friends went through. Do you think that the struggles OSC saw in his friends were in part due to their membership to a faith or culture that strongly frowns on this? When you are both Mormon and gay from a very early age, there isn't a surprise that the struggle will be termed in the memes (in honor of DB's return) of the culture(s) they are raised in, don't you think?

I dunno, I guess most of the above is rhetorical, since I don't know the situations involved. Of course, I am of the opinion that sexuality can be somewhat changeable, even if genetic, at least in some people; that it SHOULD be changed, of course, is largely a religious question.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I was originally going to put this at the end, but moved it here to ensure more people read it: what disgusts me most about this essay isn't even the stance taken. OSCs arguments are generally well constructed, as meaningless as that is. What disgusts me is the rampant disregard for facts and fact checking demonstrated throughout the essay.

Read on for my observations on that and other things.

Some points:

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.

---

quote:

---

The court shall not declare any law unconstitutional under this constitution or the Constitution of the United States, except on the concurrence of a majority of all justices of the Supreme Court.

---

quote:

---

But anyone who has any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play, will realize that this new diktat of the courts will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating.

---

quote:

---

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

---

quote:

---

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

---

quote:

---

However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were.

---

quote:

---

And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.

---

quote:

---

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

---

quote:

---

And in those families where one or both parents were missing, usually because of death, either stepparents, adoptive parents, or society in general would step in to provide, not just nurturing, but also the appropriate role models.

---

quote:

---

Only when the father became powerless or absent in the lives of huge numbers of children did we start to realize some of the things people need a father for: laying the groundwork for a sense of moral judgment; praise that is believed so that it can instill genuine self-confidence.

---

quote:

---

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

---

quote:

---

At the same time, parents recognize that non-parents are not as trustworthy caretakers. The school provides some aspects of civilization, but not others. Schools expect the parents to civilize their children in certain ways in order to take part safely with other children; parents expect to be left alone with some aspects of child-rearing, such as religion.

---

quote:

---

. . . and the civilization's need to bring the greatest number of children, not just to adulthood, but to parenthood as committed members of the society who will teach their children to also be good citizens.

---

quote:

---

We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."

---

quote:

---

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization

---

quote:

---

The same thing will happen to the word marriage if the Massachusetts decision is allowed to stand, and is then enforced nationwide because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite [sic] boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

---

quote:

---

Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them.

---

quote:

---

. . . there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

---

quote:

---

on't you see the absurd contradiction? A postulated but unproven genetic disposition toward homosexuality is supposed to be embraced and accepted by everyone as "perfectly natural" -- but the far stronger and almost universal genetic disposition toward having children and grandchildren is to be suppressed, kept to yourself, treated as a mental illness.

---

quote:

---

allowing them to create a public bond between themselves and society.

---

But by forcing the issue through the courts, by removing public discourse and public accountability, the Mass. supreme court has created a great deal of suspicion, distrust, and outright dislike. They have not caused a public bond at all-- they've created a rift.

How can we feel anything but disenfranchised and frustrated when we who oppose the judges' actions are not even given a representative voice?
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
David, I know what you're saying and I'm saying that I'm pretty upset right now (reading that really did feel like a slap in the face), so just ignore me. Or hug me. Or send me what's done on the third book so I have something else to think about.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Scott, have you not read my post?

The MA SJC did NOT force this through. They were the only people who would listen, and they did have jurisdiction in this case.

EDIT: No one wanted to have discourse. The tyranny of the majority had "spoken". So the plaintiffs were left with few options.

-Bok

[ February 24, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I feel I should clarify some things here...

ARND/Geoff:

My first reply to you was delibrately not referring to OSC as your father, as you had not referred to him as that in your post, but had rather posted from a more 'distant' perspective.

The thing is, from people like me, in many ways OSC is my hero. His books are amazing. His views are amazing. Heck, I've spent a small fortune on Card's books alone.. including those not available in Australia that I get shipped here.

And quite frankly, because of this, I react more strongly to the essay then I would have if it was by an author I didn't care about. And most of the stuff I have read by Card I can at least agree to disagree on - if not agree. But not this.

So, no, you're not the child of the anti-Christ. But your father is someone who has drawn everyone here to him through his writing. (And some hangers on. But we don't discuss them ) And when he writes something that puts many of those people on edge,or makes them uncomfortable, or angry, it creates, in my mind at least, a conflict between the author of the books we all love and the author of the article.

I think that's about it...

Oh the second thing to OSCfan:

quote:

---

Imogen, sexual deviation is not "normal".

---

OK. If you're defining normalcy by hetrosexual ( ie 'non-deviant') behaviour. That's fine.

But if you equate "sexual deviation" with "bad" then that's something different.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I wonder how many of you that are upset by the essay are somewhat influenced (flamed) in your feelings by that fact that you know OSC (or at least kinda feel like you know him through here) and know that he is a Mormon?

I mean -- we all filter data through our paradigms. Would you have read the information differently if you hadn't already known it was written by a Mormon -- if you had known nothing about the person at all that was writing it?

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Oh wow.

Count me in with those who have just had their respect for OSC shattered.

I'm very grateful that I've had the opportunity to know a few kind, loving LDS over the years. Otherwise, I might start to assume that homophobic vitriol and hateful intolerance went hand-in-hand with the church.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Oh, and fugu - Good work.

You went through the essay much more thoroughly than I had time to.

Though you were a little snarky at times ( ) I do think everything you said was worthwhile and good criticism.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Farmgirl: to be quite honest, I would have been more outraged/affronted/upset had I not known Card is a Mormon.

I understand that tenants of the Mormom faith dictate the importance of family and heterosexual marriage, and teach that homosexuality is a sin.

Knowing that about Card's beliefs, I was still disappointed.

[ February 24, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Frankly, I was aghast by Card's use of deliberately insulting and inflammatory rhetoric; the "playing dress-up" bit was absolutely inexcusable.
 

---

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
 

quote:

---

homophobic vitriol and hateful intolerance

---

quote:

---

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

---

quote:

---

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage."

They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."

Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

---

quote:

---

All the while, the P.C. elite will be shouting at dismayed parents that it is somehow evil and bigoted of them not to rejoice when their children commit themselves to a reproductive dead end.

But there is nothing irrational about parents grieving at the abduction-in-advance of their grandchildren.

---

quote:

---

anti-family revolution

---

quote:

---

we perceive, correctly, that schools are being legally obligated to brainwash our children to despise the values that keep civilization alive.

---

quote:

---

In my church and many other churches, people still cling fiercely to civilized values and struggle to raise civilized children despite the barbarians who now rule us through the courts.

The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.

And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.

---

quote:

---

It is the most morally conservative portion of society that is most successful in raising children who believe in loyalty and oath-keeping and self-control and self-sacrifice.

And we're tired of being subject to barbarian rules and laws that fight against our civilized values. We're not interested in risking our children's lives to defend a nation that does not defend us.

---

quote:

---

They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."

---

quote:

---

They added, "We don't think this is what the legislature meant to say. We don't think its what the people of Mass want. We are going to postpone our ruling on this for two months so that the legislature is allowed to correct this. If they don't then we will be forced to read the law as written and allow Gay marriages."

They were not "Legislating from the bench." They did everything in their power to return the legislation to the Legislative body. All that was needed was to have the duly elected representatives vote on an amendment that defined gay marriage.

---

Dan, you don't see the inherent bullying here? The court essentially said that if the legislative branch doesn't do what they say, they'll interpret it to mean that Gay Marriage is lawful and constitutional. Essentially it's you can do what I want your way, or you can do what I want my way. Either way, you'll do what I want. Period.

I'd call that an abuse of power, whether from the bench or the backyard.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Great post Dan_Raven. My Con Law T.A. had pretty much the same reaction.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think its fascinating that a large number of people are denouncing one set of declamations but not the other, on both sides. I'd say people who see hate in OSC's comments are just as wrong as he is, though I can see how one can be confused as what he says seems clearly designed to hurt certain groups. However, trying to hurt him in return is not warranted, just as his attempts to hurt are not warranted.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Note: I haven't read this entire thread, so most of what I'm going to say is probably just reiteration of what has already been said.

Though I'm not really a supporter of homosexual marriages - and even less a supporter of the way they're being carried out - I've got to say that OSC has used some of the stupidest arguments I've seen lately. Especially this:

quote:

---

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

---

Well, for the lack of a better term, 'durr'. Of course a homosexual man can marry a woman. No sensible people have been arguing that, so why does he feel a need to support it? I could likewise say "women could be housewives", but that doesn't mean it's wrong for them to work secularly.

I was also taken aback by his total lack of tact. Labelling gay marriage supporters advocates of the "anti-family revolution" is no better than labelling opponents of gay marriage "bigots".

But, then again, I usually disagree with OSC's take on most political discussions and generally avoid War Watch unless a topic about it shows up on the forum.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
kat, are you saying that I'm trying to dehumanize OSC? That I'm trying to invalidate his equality as a human being, or claim that his marriage is a sham?

Because I'm not. I think he's dead wrong, and I've lost an enormous amount of respect for the man. I'll voice my disgust and disagreement with tripe such as the above till the end of time.

But he's entitled to his beliefs, and you won't find me trying to deny him privileges such as marriage simply because I disagree with him.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"OSC was courageous to write as he did, as bluntly as he did."

How bizarre. Jenny, for her part, believes he wrote bravely and "beautifully."

This is, quite frankly, a load of bull.

The man accused homosexual couples of playing DRESS-UP, for God's sake. That's a patronizing put-down that we would never have tolerated here on Hatrack even a year ago -- and I'm frankly disappointed in anyone here who'd find it BEAUTIFUL.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The court essentially said that if the legislative branch doesn't do what they say, they'll interpret it to mean that Gay Marriage is lawful and constitutional."

As a side note, this is incorrect. What the court said is that, regardless of what the legislature did, the law as written was unconstitutional; they were willing, however, to give the legislature time to revise the law to bring it into accordance with the constitution.

No law was changed or rewritten; the existing law was simply found to violate the letter and spirit of the constitution.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I happen to think that a lot of things are written beautifully that I don't agree with. I cannot agree with all of OSC's positions, but I cannot deny powerful, beautiful writing when I read it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What about the "they are playing dress-up" bit did you find beautiful, exactly? Was it the implication that homosexuals can't have mature adult emotions, or the suggestion that they're just pretending to care about each other?
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Dan,

Thanks for the Legal-POV response. You beat me to it (and much better that I would have done it, anyhow).

Now, let's see...

Everyone seems to be in agreement that Civil Unions are OK. There's lots of disagreement, however, regarding "Marriages."

Let me be stupid for a moment:

My wife and I got married by a Justice of the Peace in a purely civil ceremony (really, we did); and later that year, had a fancy wedding with a Unitarian minister, "for show." The minister was quite confused when he explained to us how he would sign the marriage certificate after the ceremony, and we told him it wouldn't be necessary...but it all worked out.

Now, I have to think that a homosexual marriage in a church that doesn't support homosexuality is a moot issue--it's not going to happen. So there are other ways to get married. Like a Justice of the Peace, for instance. And that marriage differs from a "Civil Union," or we wouldn't really have a problem to begin with.

So, a non-religious marriage between homosexuals is the issue, correct? That's my first dumb question.

This leads to my second dumb question: what's the big difference, then, between a non-religious marriage and a Civil Union? It's got to be more than just the words "between a man and a woman," or we're really just all wasting our time in a semantic debate (And no accusation of me being Anti-Semantic! I just won't put up with it! Some of my best friends are words!)

And my third and final dumb question: how is this supposed to destroy my life? How close to me do these married homosexuals have to be before my own marriage starts to suffer? Can it suffer if they're in the next state over? What about if they're living in the apartment next to mine? If we invite them over to dinner, will they somehow corrupt my children? Will they duct-tape our heads together and force us to watch Will & Grace, or Queer Eye?

Or is it just a matter of the real-estate values dropping?

--Longing for knowledge & wisdom,

Steve

[ February 24, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Steve,

See A victory for semantic arguments everywhere... for more analysis on this point.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I interpreted it as pretending something they are not. I don't agree with the sentiments expressed, but the language was obviously evocative and powerful. It certainly got you riled up, eh? And that is what is beautiful about the writing. You cannot help but react emotionally to it.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
*shrugs at Tom with a friendly smile*

I thought it was well written, and that it did take courage to not only write, but publish on his website, under his own name, where he could be flamed the the satisfaction of his guests. I don't use my own name here, yet I thought long and hard about posting my landmark threads, and whether I should. It requires courage to lay your obviously unpopular opinions out there to be scrutinized and flayed to the nitpicking of single words, especially writing under your own name.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ah.

See, I use "beautiful" differently, to imply that something actually possesses attributes of beauty (or, at the very least, Truth -- per Keats.)

I think the word you're looking for is "powerful," in that his words definitely DID have power.

And the words I'd be looking for are, most likely, "powerfully ugly" -- in that they had plenty of power in exactly the same way that a rank heap of stinking bile can clear a room pretty quickly.

----

Nor, to be honest, do I consider OSC to be particularly "brave" to write articles that express his controversial opinion. If he hung out here more often, perhaps, or knew more of us on a personal level -- so he'd have to actually face our reaction to his words -- or if he honestly thought about how his homosexual friends would feel if he belittled them to his face, THAT would be "brave." If he thought that people were going to stop buying his books, or that there were a legitimate chance that his publisher would drop him for being "offensive," THAT would be "brave."

But what OSC is looking for, more than anything else, is to play Demosthenes; I think two years of War Watch and an increasing tendency towards didactic argument in his novels makes that pretty obvious. He's not BRAVE for inviting controversy, because he LIKES insulting controversy; that's like arguing that Grego was brave for challenging the establishment, even as he drew power from the roar of the crowd.

OSC is not playing Locke; he's not making calm, dispassionate, logical, and uninsulting arguments for his position. He's deliberately riling people up -- and being as much of a demagogue as his conscience will let him get away with.

He's GOOD at it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to heap laurels on him for it.

[ February 24, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Tom, I went back and reread that bit. I think that what you are doing is what so many Bible-quoters do - taking a line out of context. Within the context of the article, it makes sense and clearly illustrates the points OSC is trying to make. Taken out, it is obviously offensive.

Beautiful writing should be seen as a whole, I think.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Steve, for your third question, please see the article I linked above. Not that it would affect you, but it will very much affect your children and how they view marriage. Which was a *large* portion of the point OSC was making, and probably the biggest portion of his article I agreed with.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Now we're getting into a discussion of aesthetics! *arched eyebrow*

There are those that would argue for the beauty in something harsh. Is there beauty in the violent world of Nature? Is there beauty in the wolf's teeth, the eagle's claws? These are tools of Power and Death.

How can I not frankly admire the beauty of words that also cut right to the point?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
ssywak -- I don't think OSC is okay with civil unions. Its just a hunch I have from the essay, and his repeated insistence that giving homosexual people equivalent legal rights takes away other peoples' rights to have grandchildren that are genetically related to them and the spouse of their child (he puts an awful lot of restrictions on that right, as the general form -- have grandchildren -- is certainly something that homosexual couples can enable).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Jenny, let me submit that any comment that is powerfully offensive when taken out of context but left intact is in fact merely hiding behind its context.

Saying that gays who want to marry are "gaining nothing" and "playing dress-up" isn't insulting only because of its word choice, but because he is deliberately dismissing their desires as fictional and their emotions as immature. Putting it back into context doesn't make it any less insulting; it just wraps the insult in other words so that it sounds less insulting.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Jeni -- the article you linked above is interesting, but I don't think the studies mentioned show what they say it shows. First, marriage statistics did improve. They assert the improvement is meaningless, but they demonstrate no additional statistics to show that, merely doing some intellectual theorizing as to why they are meaningless.

Then they move on to statistics dealing with unmarried couples, and assert the problems there are caused by allowing homosexual people to get married. I think that causation is tenuous at best, particularly as they (notably, as the statistic is clearly one they had access to based on some of their mentions) don't mention the growth in that problem before homosexual marriage was allowed, which I predict would show the growth either remaining constant or decreasing.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
Sometimes I hope that this issue (or one like it) does, as David presages, rip this nation apart. The way things are going, the US seems to need some rippin' apart.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
fugu, I don't think that supportive statistics could be cited because such statistics cannot be calculated due to lack of data. That's what I got from the article, anyway. It's pretty dense. It is reasonable, it seems, to theorize as much as the other side does, isn't it? And isn't it reasonable, based on the conclusions of the article, that we should at least tread with caution?

As OSC said in his article, we openned the floodgates with easy divorces and socially acceptable casual sex, to the clear and undeniable harm of children. Don't these previous experiences teach us enough to have enough caution to wait and see what happens in the few other countries that are trying this to see what we would be doing to our own next generation?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I'll be really interested to see if OSC chooses to respond to this thread at some point.

I can tell you are really disturbed, Tom. Having heard some of Card's rants before, I know he is quite opinionated and egotistic (as all good writers I have ever met are). I accept that as part of who he is. And I love him for it. I also accept and love the bits of you that come across strong, opinionated, and egotistical.

I guess I rarely see things as insulting, because I take vitriol to be a personal matter of the one giving the opinions, not necessarily applying to me and mine. After all, this is an opinion piece where someone is giving his opinion and justifying it. It is a beautifully written opinion piece. Doesn't mean you have to like or agree with the opinion expressed. Obviously you don't.

But I wouldn't write off all the things written. My approach is to find common ground and find ways to respect others, even if I think they are far off-base in some respects.

In OSC's essay, I find beauty in the way he writes and the way he advocates for children.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
If any writer potrayed conservatives as a group as barbarians and in general used the same kind of rhetoric OSC did about them, there isn't a conservative on this forum who would be defending him.

If any writer potrayed heterosexuals or those who want strictly het marriage to be the law the way OSC does, there isn't a person on this forum who would be defending that writer as anything but a mere propagandist.

Is there not one conservative on this forum who doesn't recognize that the language OSC has written this essay in is insulting and deragatory towards groups who do not think the way he does? Isn't this a sign of a lack of character? At the very least, doesn't this tactic cause his essay to fail by the standards of rational discourse? Can you not put your own group in those groups that he is condemning and understand what people are saying?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
In a twisted way, I also applaud a good insult, even if it is directed at me, if it is well-phrased.

I like language, especially when it has power.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I have yet to read any article that I think speaks to the truths of the matter. No "conservative" article has graciously given ground to the other point of view. No "liberal" article has done so, either. Until someone stretches to find common ground, we're going to have beautifully written but fatally flawed arguments.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
:/
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
This is my darkest day on Hatrack. I am so completely disillusioned I can hardly post coherently. I am in the Kafka-esque position of a man falsely condemned listening to friends (?) admire how well crafted is the gas chamber.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 

quote:

---

OSC is not playing Locke; he's not making calm, dispassionate, logical, and uninsulting arguments for his position. He's deliberately riling people up -- and being as much of a demagogue as his conscience will let him get away with.

---

and here Tom had me really believing he was such a nice guy in person..... I thought he was kind, fun, happy go lucky... then I read his posts on this thread and see none of that.

FG
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

If any writer potrayed conservatives as a group as barbarians and in general used the same kind of rhetoric OSC did about them, there isn't a conservative on this forum who would be defending him.

---

But there would be "liberals" defending him.

Considering the lack of effort by a lot of people on the pro-gay-marriage side to attempt to understand where the other side is coming from, I've got little sympathy. Let the zealots yell at each other for a while.

Dagonee
*For the record, I thought it was way over the top.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
(((KarlEd)))
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
What about this article should make Tom (or anyone) be fun and happy, go-lucky???

This is a real issue that impacts people in very real and very important ways.

How would you like to be living with someone you love for 20+ years to find that when they die you are legally homeless because the home was in your partner's name. That when they are in the hospital that you don't have any visitation rights... There are many many reasons for gay couples to want some legal protections.

This insn't a funny topic to alot of people farmgirl.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Sigh. You're probably right, Dag.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Damn. Most depressed I've been about being right in a long time.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Jenny has now definitively become someone to whom I can . Those kind of views (being able to appreciate the beauty and integrity of a piece even if you don't necessarily agree with the message) are what make me stay here on the 'rack.

I loved the film ANGELS IN AMERICA for its beauty and artistic merits, even thought I didn't agree with all of the 'points' it was trying to make.

Also the flipside - I know people who agreed 100% with what the film was 'trying to say' and admired that, and yet weren't a big fan of the production.

Of course some people honestly hated all parts of it - inclusing, seemingly, OSC. I don't agree with that - not do I agree with a great deal of his film reviews - but I'm not going to call him dumb and uncultured and closedminded about them, because it's very obvious that he is none of those things. He writes from his own personal experience, as well as from extensive research in many cases. It's raw. Sure. But I'm tired of watered-down-to-please-everybody PC wordplay.

I honor and respect people who say what they truly believe - even if I disagree.

Does that mean I won't try to get them to see my own point of view? Of course not.

In turnm I respect people who are opposed to me giving rational and well thought out responses as to why they think I'm wrong.

But if they just start insulting my person without making a point - that's where you lose respect. OSC rarely makes blanket statements without trying to explain how he sees it. And that, I can respect.

So once again: Jenny - love ya.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
KarkEd:

I don't see how letting homosexuals marry robs my marriage of ANYTHING. I mean, wha?

One of my friends compared this argument to the parable of the Prodigal Son. You know the part where the father hauls out the fatted clf and the cutlery, and the 'good' son has a hissy fit? I see her point. Gods, this is depressing.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

Saying that gays who want to marry are "gaining nothing" and "playing dress-up" isn't insulting only because of its word choice, but because he is deliberately dismissing their desires as fictional and their emotions as immature. Putting it back into context doesn't make it any less insulting; it just wraps the insult in other words so that it sounds less insulting.

---

quote:

---

How would you like to be living with someone you love for 20+ years to find that when they die you are legally homeless because the home was in your partner's name.

---

quote:

---

That when they are in the hospital that you don't have any visitation rights...

---

This is true, although visitation rights aren't nearly as difficult to get as the power to make medical decisions on behalf of a homosexual life partner. This, in my mind, is one of the most egregious of the situations caused by the current prohibition against civil unions.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
KarlEd, your post has made me weep.

I am truly, truly sorry that my words have come across this way.

I guess it's really not my impression that OSC is railing against homosexuals. I thought he was railing against a society that has forgotten what it means to put children first.

In my own personal opinion, we should do away with any "special privileges" given to people who choose marriage. Then we will find out what marriage is or is not. If it is a religious construct, or a social one, or a biological one, or what. Is marriage a legal construct? Should it be?

To OSC, a marriage has a particular definition. And he defends that. But time will bear out whether or not he is correct.

I find it really interesting, too, to see the generational divide - many of the "older" folks who have raised their families fall into OSC's camp, and many of us "younger" ones take a more liberal view. I wonder if it has anything to do with an age perspective.

I don't want people to be hurt by this issue, but it looks like that will happen regardless. I just wish some people would admit that homosexuals do form lasting commited relationships that differ from other marriages only by the gender of the participants, and I wish that some people would recognize that children have and are being hurt by not dealing with the issues of what makes for a strong family - and that this homosexual marriage debate is bringing them out.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Karl,

I hope that this serves as a lesson to us all. First of all, we don't understand why people are the way they are (or why the universe is as it is). Not fully. But every group has vested interest in asserting its view of (human) nature. This is the crux of the human race: the clash of epistemologies. Perhaps you will now join me in the pessimistic view that humanity is destined to balkanize itself, to never progress in unity, and to one day extinguish itself on the coals of its own (perhaps perniciously innate) inability to understand itself.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm relatively happy-go-lucky, Farmgirl. And I've defended OSC -- on this board, in fact -- from accusations of bigotry before.

But this particular article is considerably more insulting -- on a personal level -- than the other "anti-gay-marriage" statements I've seen from him, and I'm not going to pretend that it's okay to ignore the hostility in his remarks simply because he's a man whose craft and whose mind I otherwise respect.

See, I CARE about the gay friends and family I have. Precisely because I do, I would never dream -- NEVER -- of belittling them the way he belittles his own hypothetical gay friends in this recent essay. I'm not a particularly oversensitive person; I don't believe that I'm picking up on a tone that isn't there, or isn't meant to be there, and don't think I'm reading too much into what he wrote.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that not everyone reading that essay picked up on the same comments. I actually ACHE for KarlEd, whom I know to be a good, kind-hearted, and loving person -- and a huge fan of Card -- because I can't imagine what it would feel like to me if OSC were to write an essay saying that, now that he's lost weight, he no longer has any respect for fat men and thinks that we should prevent them from pretending to have social lives, that the mere idea of fat men going out and enjoying themselves basically turned his nights on the town into kiddie tea parties, devoid of any real meaning.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Rat, Dog, Geoff, however best you want to be called, very nicely put.

I wish OSC would have put it so nicely.

I get very nervous around the argument "They can't have real children so they can't be really married."

My wife and I can't have kids. Does that mean I should dump her and find someone to carry on my genes? Does that mean the society I live in should force me too? Does that mean that the society I live in should send me to reeducation camps until I believe that another, more fertile woman is really right for me?

It is true that OSC does not state he does not beleive the love between gay couples is not real.

He doesn't mention love anywhere in the article.

Most anti-gay-marriage arguments don't mention love either.

Love is the central part of my religious beliefs. Not lust. Not Sex. Love. People do not get married for Sex. They do not get married for Lust. They get married for LOVE.

Taking love out of the decision is as unconstructive as taking religion out of it. All you have left is social and civic priorities that cover up the real issues.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I guess it's really not my impression that OSC is railing against homosexuals. I thought he was railing against a society that has forgotten what it means to put children first."

Part of the problem, I think, is that OSC seems to take as givens some basic things -- that homosexuality harms children, or that marriage was ever intended to "put children first" -- which are not generally accepted, and comes to conclusions which cause universal harm to certain individuals based on his disputed assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
You know, one of the biggest problems here is that we CAN'T interbreed and get the problem worked out.

In racial issues, there's always some Romeos who go for a Juliet. In religious groups, there are some who will fall in love outside their group. But with homosexuals and heterosexuals, this won't work at all. So we have to fight to find a "love conquers all" situation.

Is that what makes this issue so thorny?

KarlEd and other homosexual friends are hurting. I hurt for them, too. But I also cannot turn my back on the biological arguments for what "marriage" is. Is "marriage" really just pair-bonding?

I am more and more of the opinion that marriage is not a matter for the country to govern. Perhaps states, or communities?
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
As long as we're re-defining marriage lets allow Mormons to marry their wives, lonely farmers to marry their sheep, and onanistic monkeys (Lovelock) to marry their hands...as long as it's a "lasting commited relationship."
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Dan_raven, I think your perspective is invaluable here! What about all the childless couples, by choice and circumstance? Are their marriages lessened because no children are involved? I should think childless couples ought to have the exact status as homosexual couples. Whatever that turns out to be.

I, for one, would not deny insurance, inheritance, or guardianship to a homosexual couple. Nor would I deny aids to childless couples. But I also am willing to forgo any "special" rights I have by being married so that all of society can work out a different way of taking care of the children. If my marital status is an issue, I am willing to sacrifice certain legal privileges. As long as I am still free to live with whom I choose, have intimacy however I choose, and contribute to a household in the way I choose, then I am content.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
There is a problem with having States or Communities decide the definition of marriage.

Suppose to men get married and live a happy productive life. One summer they go on vacation to a different community.

One of them falls and breaks an ankle. They rush to the hospital.

In this community, the two men are NOT seen as married. As such, the life partner of the wounded man is NOT allowed to visit his love in the emergency room--only family are allowed in the emergency room. This fellow knows what medications his partner takes, what allergies he has, his entire health history. However, he is not allowed in because he is not family, not married. They instead, call the wounded man's family, whom he hasn't seen for years, to gather this info.

Further, several weeks later they get a major bill from the hospital. Their insurance refuses to cover any of the expenses, because since they were in this second community, they were not considered married, so the first man's health insurance doesn't cover the second-wounded-man, as it does in their home community.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"As long as we're re-defining marriage lets allow Mormons to marry their wives, lonely farmers to marry their sheep, and onanistic monkeys (Lovelock) to marry their hands..."

I don't think it's unreasonable to retain the requirement of consent in marriage.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Icky, icky, icky.

Why is only family allowed in emergency rooms? I know people whose families are actually harmful, and it would be extremely bad to have their families visit them.

I think I see the problem better with your example.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Exactly, Tom. And an age of consent as well.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
What about "group" or "line" marriages, such as in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Karl, I'm mostly stepping in to defend my father here because ... well, because he has so few people on his side, for one thing ... and because I'm afraid that he will be raked over the coals less for his own opinions than for the frustrations that have already built up within zealots like Lalo, who are quite willing to crucify him in effigy for all of the true bigots who have made my father's side in this argument look far uglier and meaner than he could ever intend it to.

But despite having grown up in my father's home, and despite seeing the world through many of the same lenses that he does, I am much more moderate on this issue than he is, and I owe that fact entirely to the conversations I've had with you. I've spent most of my life within communities dominated by practicing Mormons, and between that and luck of the draw, I haven't had very many opportunities to have close gay friends. You've made up for that deficit rather well, and I'm grateful to know you.

I still find myself caught between the two extremes of this argument, being fearful of and disgusted by the behavior of gay-haters, while being skittish of the possible implications of the society-wide changes promoted by the pro-gay side. I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that the best solution is a compromise that allows gay couples to have every legal privilege and freedom associated with marriage, while leaving the opposition the word "marriage", itself, to hang their beliefs on ...

But with this post, I just mostly want to let you know that while I'm defending my father from accusations of bigotry, I do not want to see you hurt by this discussion. As Bowles has said, this issue has unprecedented power to tear people apart, and I'd really like that not to happen between us. You've changed me in a very positive way — you've made me more open-minded and understanding, which I consider to be one of the most important virtues that a person can learn in this life, and I'm grateful.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Chances are good that one of my sons will not be able to produce offspring without serious medical help, possibly even cloning. Does that mean his marriage will be meaningless? I don't think so, and I don't think OSC would think so either, provided he marries a woman.

I feel like the robot in the scifi story who explodes when given a logical fallacy... I just don't follow.

My head hurts.

Jenny... I'm not sure I could call it beautiful. Actually, it seemed to me to be deliberately inflammatory. Especially in light of the fact that Geoff's explanations of his father's points have generally been much less offensive in tone. Geoff doesn't come off sounding dismissive and superior.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Bless you, Geoff, this is exactly the rationality and love we need.

I wish more people could see more things with eyes like yours.

The worst think I could ever imagine is a Civil War at Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I wonder if we can give the trait of "using a dismissive and superior tone to present arguments" protected status similar to what we give the trait of homosexuality Then you'd all be bigots for criticizing my father ...

... of course, then I'd be a bigot for going after Lalo and Frisco ...
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
<--- What Geoff said. I was drafting something, but he said it much better than I did, so I'll just go with what he wrote. Thanks, Geoff.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think it's unreasonable to retain the requirement of consent in marriage.

Exactly, Tom. And an age of consent as well.

---

Be careful, we're talking about species and age discrimination.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I guess I don't understand, Livvy. OSC comes across as "superior" and "inflammatory" in person, too. He "riffs" on his opinions all the time. And he's still one of the most decent people I've ever met. He has passionate opinions which he defends with every skill he possesses, yet when it comes to individuals, he is gentility itself.

Perhaps having worked with him personally makes me less likely to bridle at the way he expresses himself. I was irritated by his take on "environmentalists" at Boot Camp, but I still didn't take it personally. I think OSC is an admirable man - he will fight and die for his principles, but he will also treat the people he meets with honesty, kindness, and caring regardless of their sexuality, race, or religion.

As a public figure, I think perhaps it is hard for OSC to realize his words come off differently than when he interacts and speaks with people in person. I wonder if he realizes how much these words have hurt people, especially people that I'm sure he would care about.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Are you saying he's nicer in person?
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I just wish that political zealots knew how to compromise. Personally, I think that a total victory for either side of this argument could be a potential disaster. I never want to return to the days of sodomy laws, or open, hateful prejudice against gays, but I also see some merit in the worries that more moderate activists against gay marriage present, and think that a total victory for gay marriage could cost us later in ways that are difficult to see right now. But I'm afraid that neither side in this argument will rest until they have remade the world according to their own imaginings, regardless of the cost. If I could only think of a way to placate everyone ... [racks brain] I freaking hate this ...
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Face it, people, we're all bigots. I'm okay with that. As long as we can find some teeny piece of common ground, and are willing to work on expanding it to a livable space, I'm happy.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Lalo is also deliberately inflammatory, much moreso , in fact, than OSC.

But marriages where there is no chance of reproduction can still have meaning, and I just don't see what is being "taken" from me by giving KarlEd the legal right to form a union with his partner.

I didn't mean to name-call, and I don't think I did. Jenny mentioned that she found OSC to be sort of egotistical ("as most good writers are" I think), and that's certainly how he comes off sometimes (in print or in person) at least to my own skewwed perceptions.

My last post came up after yours, but I had not seen it because it posted while I was writing.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
His impression on me was that he is an incredibly caring person. He's set in his ways and believes he is Right about a lot of things, but not so much that he'd deliberately try to hurt you for holding a different sense of Rightness about your beliefs. He'll just say "You're wrong, and I'm Right." and leave it at that. And there'd be a twinkle in his eye so you'd know he didn't hate you. He just happens to think you are wrong.

I know very few people who are different, deep down. Belle is very much this way, for instance, and I know her to be one of the gentlest souls that ever lived. She's also hard and stubborn as rock when it comes to her beliefs about what is Right.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
He was very amusing and entertaining in person, buyt I still had a feeling that he would not be a person I would like very much one-on-one.

But I don't know if that's true and probably never will. Thanks for reminding me I was only an 'alternate' at Boot Camp. Rub it in.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I get upset, Olivet, because I see that not allowing KarlEd to marry the person he loves does take something away from me. It takes the wonderful example of a happy, working, marriage out of our lives, and replaces it with an arbitrary rule that says the feelings of others are not as important as our sense of order, our religion, or our need to overproduce children on this planet.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
...so you don't mind if Mormons are allowed to marry their wives?

That's going to kill the insurance companies.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
He's charismatic, which means his personality comes across strongly. It's one of the things that makes his writing that we love so powerful. Charismatic people can be scary, because they believe in themselves so strongly and aren't afraid to express their opinions.

I have much the same effect on people at times. However, I tend to hold back on lots of issues because I don't feel I have enough information to solidly say This is Right. Lots of grey in my world. And I'm also okay with Paradox, where I can believe in two apparantly opposite concepts at the same time.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Basically, Card is an extremely eloquent writer and speaker. He has studied communication and expression his entire life, and knows exactly how to provoke a reaction with words. You can read Songmaster, or almost any of his works, and see how he admires people who, by the sheer force of their eloquence, can sway nations and bring the powerful to their knees.

I know what I'm talking about. Imagine growing up in a home where praise from your father was given with the strength of a legendary poet — and where disappointment or anger came through with similar power.

I think that most of us, given Card's rhetorical strength, would be precisely as dramatic and heavyhanded with our opinions as he can be at times. Could you own the fastest car in the world and NEVER speed?

Card is fighting against a growing, overwhelming tide of public opinion that in a few short years has begun to flow overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. Untouched, I think it would completely engulf the moderate majority of our country, leaving little chance for backtracking or rethinking our premises. I believe that Card has opened up all the stops in an effort to create an effective resistance to what he sees as a potentially very dangerous shift in our perception of the family.

He isn't overstating his case to be a jerk. He's overstating it to make an impact. In his dealings with individuals, when the future of the nation is not hanging in the balance, he is the most tolerant and loving man you could ever know. I worry that people who dismiss or reject him for his public statements are missing out on one of the truly great individuals this generation has produced.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I'd soooo much rather have KarlEd married than a lot of the folks who rush into it irresponsibly and leave hurting people in their wake. And I'd rather have emotionally stable gay couples raising children than those who abuse them.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thanks, Dan. You talkee much gooder than Olivet. Olivet glad Hatrack have good talkers. Olivet learn good talking here.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Geoff, I greatly appreciate your words in this thread and agree with almost all of them. I especially admire that you didn't rip the head off of the people attacking your father. I am assured that OSC knows exactly the power of his words. I like this discussion, but made a resolution to not get too involved.

My comment was a bit of a joke, because I keep getting told that when people meet me. That I'm so much nicer in person. Just looking for a commonality.

Edit: Okay, no more reference to me.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Geoff, it's amazing that you came out okay...wait, what am I saying?

*hugs Geoff*

What say we start working on the common ground bit, eh? What can we ALL agree upon?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Geoff, I understand that he's breaking a few eggs to make omelets. I just feel genuinely sorry for the eggs, and don't particularly like omelets in the first place.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I have missed most of this discussion, but I wanted to talk about the courts some more. Dan Raven wrote:

quote:

---

What the Mass Supreme Court did was not MAKE NEW LAW. They had people come to them and say, "Hey, there is a loop hole in the constitution that can allow gay folks to get married. Does it say what we think it says?"
The court did the one thing it is allowed to do. It looked over the laws and the constitution, and it said, "You are right." That was all they had to do.
However, they went further.
They added, "We don't think this is what the legislature meant to say. We don't think its what the people of Mass want. We are going to postpone our ruling on this for two months so that the legislature is allowed to correct this. If they don't then we will be forced to read the law as written and allow Gay marriages."

---

But it was reported in the news that the court had told the legislators to change the law. I don't know why they would do that, but that is what was reported.

Edit: What can we all agree on? That the news media is on the opposite side from ourselves

[ February 24, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

What Card seems to be asserting is not that homosexual love is fake, but rather that when the love between members of the same gender becomes sexual, rather than platonic or fraternal, then something has gone wrong.

---

quote:

---

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

---

quote:

---

My comment was a bit of a joke, because I keep getting told that when people meet me. That I'm so much nicer in person. Just looking for a commonality.

---

quote:

---

What can we ALL agree upon?

---

quote:

---

But I percieve that they were meant to hurt.

---

I think they were meant to defend, not as a first strike.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
:this is something I put on another thread, but I think I'll post it here as well:

Karl, I do know gay people. My uncle has lived with the same partner for nearly 20 years. The female dean of the high school where I teach is engaged to one of the female Language Arts teachers in my department, and I count both of them as friends.

I understand your plight and your concerns. I also understand those of conservatives opposed to gay marriage. And my conclusion is that there is no solution, because someone's belief system is going to be butchered at the end of this, and that will create more hate, and the cycle will go ever on...

[ February 24, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, the SJC told the Legislature to modify current law to be consistent with the existing MA state Constitution. When asked for clarification, they (and this I think is a bit more dubious) said that only civil marriage for gays and straights would suffice; civil unions, if they had all the rights of civil marriage, would simply be a way for the state to stigmatize those who would chose civil unions... Basically, since separate but equal has an unsuccessful track record in this nation (and in MA), a separate civil union would be attempting an already proven wrong path.

I think that, although I support full civil marriage for gays, I think the SJC went a bit too far in that case; however, I can't exactly argue that separate but equal has only failed in this nation as a legal precept.

The original was simply to say that the marriage laws violate the clause I quoted earlier in this thread. They passed no law. They told the legislature (whose job is to pass laws) to bring the state's statutes in line with the MA constitution.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Geoff -- I understand that was what he was going for, which is why I don't consider the hurting of people the worst part of it. That he was has no desire to hurt people I believe. That he is willing to hurt people in the furtherance of his own beliefs I find deplorable, but unfortunately understandable.

The worst part, as I stated above, is that he is willing to trample on facts in the furtherance of his beliefs. Not even regarding the abilities of homosexual people to have meaningful marriage,s, or raise kids well, but on simple things like: what sorts of marriage the longest lasting civilizations have had, and whether or not any constitution in the US gave any court the power to do what the Mass. court did.

edit to add: and if facts are no longer of consequence, one has descended from vociferous advocacy into zealotry.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*grins at Ryuko*

Oh good, a noogie. Not quite a laugh, but better than a groan. I'll take it.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, War Watch is actually published in a local newspaper of OSC's... So it is for a bit wider an audience.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I wonder whether it would be prudent of me to draw parallels with "separate but equal" sporting events... you don't put a guy in a wheelchair in a marathon with runners, but you still give them a marathon that is more or less the same, with other wheelchair-propelled fellows.

Hrm. Trying to feel out solutions here, and not feeling too confident.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
DB, I have to say I don't share your pessimism. Take racism in the US as an example. Yes, there are still hateful racists, and they hate far too much, but they're an extreme minority. Most of the racism that remains in the US is not volitional, and is opposed in thought if not successfully in action by those participating in it.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I would think that such a brilliant communicator could get his point across without derision. I think that a good communicator also would be persuasive, if possible.

I am forced to conclude that he wanted to inspire vitriol from the Lalos of the world. He as much as said so.

And I don't get that. I just don't get WHY, if he has the worl'd fastest car, does he aim for the mud puddles directly in front of the bus stop.

I would see that essay as an example of a great communicator losing his edge, maybe, but not at the height of his powers.

I don't mean to be offensive or insulting by saying that. It's just the way I see it.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Oh, yeah, sorry to edit the post on you, kat I realized after I wrote it that, although I was springboarding off a statement you made, most of my post was actually directed, in a diffuse manner, to a lot of other people, and I didn't want you to feel like I was trying to argue something with you, when we agree
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Olivet, I've been trying to figure out how to say that for the last hour.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
DB, That's somewhat different, in that the governing bodies of events like marathons have no constitutions/bylaws that is equivalent to the "equal protection" clauses in most state (and our federal) constitutions.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

And I don't get that. I just don't get WHY, if he has the worl'd fastest car, does he aim for the mud puddles directly in front of the bus stop.

---

Olivet:
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Bok,

True. I'm just looking for some compromise that won't have one half of the nation at the neck of the other half.

:despondent:
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Why did the gay marriage "civil disobedience" mobilize on Valentine's Day/President's day? It seems a very ill timed decision on their part.

DB: let the people vote on it, see if it really is half.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 

quote:

---

I never will understand this hidden "agenda" business. Really, people! Conservatives aren't out to Destroy the Environment, Pagans aren't out to Subvert our Children, and Homosexuals aren't out to Twist our Morality. People are just trying to live their lives, and their priorities don't necessarily follow yours. It doesn't mean that they hate you because you choose a different Prime Directive and Modus Operandi.

---

((Jenny))

I liked that.

I don't really know that I have anything extremely insightful to add to this discussion (and my brain is fried from sitting here and reading it all)....but I will add that Geoff has really impressed me, and I think KarlEd deserves a medal...and a marraige license.

....I wish there was a way to solve this without hurting people so deeply.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
DB, honestly, I think if MA is allowed to be the testbed, it will alleviate a lot of the worries, or delineate many of them.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Kasie, me too.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I think that may be my first bowing purple dude ever in an issue thread. I weep with joy.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, 2 reasons I'd bet:

1) The MA Constitutional Convention brought some national attention to it.

2) There were a couple of Conservative groups that were going to sue to block any attempts; I'm not sure if this was the case, but from what I've read/heard, there was pressure being applied by conservative groups.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
In roman times, the bride's hair was parted with a spear. In China, brides are decked in red. The celebration of marriage as the victory of Love is a fairly recent development in civilization. I dunno. Maybe in his next essay Card will unroll a plan to do away with courtship and romance altogether and go back to the grandmas arranging everything.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

....I wish there was a way to solve this without hurting people so deeply.

---

quote:

---

go back to the grandmas arranging everything.

---

quote:

---

Maybe in his next essay Card will unroll a plan to do away with courtship and romance altogether and go back to the grandmas arranging everything.

---

But if this idea was instituted, I have a feeling there'd be 100% more marriage in MY life.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Right, Bok, but the backlash has whipped the other way. If Bush's call for an amendment is more than symbolic, anyway. I think it's more of a wake up call for the states to address these issues.

Edit to say: Bush and most conservatives including myself did not feel an amendment was necessary until these events unfolded.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
AJ: Um, I think Ayelar said that, not me. I'm in the "hurt by gross generalizations from charismatic speaker" camp.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
whoops, sorry celia. Actually this entire thing brought to mind that discussion we had in the car on the liquor run with Happy Camper. OSC made some sort of religious generalization that both you and HC took some umbrage too, because you are both (if I recall correctly) agnostics (or is one of you an atheist?) and didn't feel the way he said you *should* feel at all. I think you said at the time that it lowered your respect of him, though you were basically viewing it as a live and let live situation.

This peice definitely lacked sensitivity and ordinary politness and good manners.

AJ

[ February 24, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Olivet, in this particular debate, it is not possible to even address certain subjects without treading a very fine line. Either you stick precisely to a well-defined, non-offensive opinion, or you hurt someone's feelings. We cannot make a rational or informed decision on this matter without hearing all sides, and it seriously impairs the process when one side elicits such anger simply by stating an uncomfortable idea.

EDIT: Whoops, I stepped away from my computer before actually hitting "Post", and the world has moved on without me Feel free to ignore this one.

[ February 24, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Yeah, I wish I could remember what he said at that signing. Whatever it was was less of a charisma issue and more of a "that doesn't make any sense" issue.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Geoff, you have been uniformly polite in stating and defending even your most controversial beliefs, including in this thread.

Your father wasn't.

In my mind there is a line albeit a fine one, but he definitely crossed it.

AJ
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I don't think OSC was "simply . . . stating an uncomfortable idea."
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Though I would also like to commend how you have handled yourself in this discussion. IMO, what we need are more people willing to be reasonable far more than people willing to do what it takes.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Banna, you would not believe the mental acrobatics I go through trying not to be offensive when bringing up my own concerns. It's kind of unfair that people on the pro-gay-marriage side of the argument are only arguing against people that it's okay to insult Notice I never got this much sympathy when John L insulted my religion.

[ February 24, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
My respect has grown for him immensely. He felt what he felt, wrote what he wanted to write, and sticks by it.

In a very very public way, he has taken a spectacularly unpopular view, written it out in clear concise, terms that cannot be mistaken and doesn't give a rat's [patootie] what the rest of you or anyone else think.

If that's not deserving of respect, then I'm not sure I care what you people think IS deserving of respect.

[ February 24, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, the thing is, SOME conservatives HAVE been pushing for state and federal constitutional amendments for years now.

*sigh at no one in particular*

I'm at a loss at this point. And it hurts, because I like just about everyone here so much.

No, I'm not leaving Hatrack probably this discussion though.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Oh crap, now odouls is on his side. He MUST be wrong

EDIT: Just kidding, odouls. I just had to break my nonoffensive streak.

[ February 24, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

In a very very public way, he has taken a spectacularly unpopular view

---

quote:

---

If that's not deserving of respect, then I'm not sure I give a flying shit what you people think IS deserving of respect.

---

quote:

---

Why did the gay marriage "civil disobedience" mobilize on Valentine's Day/President's day? It seems a very ill timed decision on their part.

---

quote:

---

Notice I never got any sympathy from John L or anyone else after he insulted my religion.

---

quote:

---

This has been such a fast moving thread I must have missed it.

---

Different thread, same subject. He basically said that if you disagree with homosexual marriage for religious reasons, then your god can "kiss his patootie". I thought that was a pretty offensive and childish dismissal of some very well-thought-out religious viewpoints, and it hurt to the degree that I wrote a pretty uncharacteristic vitriolic reply. Didn't get nearly the sympathy for it, though
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
So Geoff, what do you think of my Making/Unmaking point?

I don't buy the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet" approach in this case, becuase those eggs have already been broken in the past and I don't see an omlet materializing anywhere in society except a glimmer of one on hatrack that now appears to have been effectively destroyed.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

Ryuko, for heaven's sake, he didn't write it for the express purpose of hurting people.

---

Maybe not, but it's been implied in this thread that the only reason he wrote such inflammatory and out-of-context points is because he was expressly trying to strike back at the people who have called him bigoted for being opposed to gay marriage.

As for whether he's wrong... He is allowed to have whatever opinion he wishes. I don't agree with him. But I am violently opposed to the way he wrote this essay. I was actually reminded of Jack Chick in reading it, which makes me really really sad.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Geoff, well, I've been trying to steer the argument to the particulars OSC puts in his op-ed. No one has really taken me to task yet. Why don't you give it a try?

For the record, I think the SJC satisfactorily (not "correctly", since there are multiple interpretations I think) interpretted the amendment in the MA Constitution, and correctly ruled against the current statutes. I think their subsequent clarification in January was a more troublesome, particularly if you want to leave any chance for compromise, but they did cite previous unsuccessful attempts of "separate but equal".

In all of this, they have not made a law. They HAVE, however, asked that the MA legislature passes legislation that does bring the current statutes back into coherency with the state constitution.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Not everything is a making or an unmaking. when Alvin killed the slavecatcher he didn't use a knack. Just anger and his fists. But on reflections, I think OSC believes the redefinition to be an unmaking.

ack, end of the page. I kept refreshing like a numbskull.

[ February 24, 2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe not, but it's been implied in this thread that the only reason he wrote such inflammatory and out-of-context points is because he was expressly trying to strike back at the people who have called him bigoted for being opposed to gay marriage

---

quote:

---

Oh crap, now odouls is on his side. He MUST be wrong

---

Just to be clear, I'm not making any distinction as to whether or not I agree or disagree with his opinion on gay marriage or his opinion of courts' actions with the issue.
I am only stating my greater sense of respect for him as a result of his putting his opinion out in the open to be scrutinized by whiners, crybabies, fanatics, psychos, heterosexuals, homosexuals, judges, sci fi fans, supporters, republicans, democrats, jatraqueros, ornery americans, emos, 4th graders and 4th grade emo assholes like me alike.

(I certainly do not want to taint his opinions by lending my support to them. That's the kiss of death around here. )

[ February 24, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think I addressed a number of his logical points.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
You left out emos and 4th graders.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Come on. It was WAY better than Jack Chick. You're striking low now, Ryuko

Banna, your point has merit. When I initially read the essay, my reaction was much like Jenny's ... it was a powerful statement of a set of ideas that one rarely hears, and it was written very well. It was refreshing to find someone that could discuss some of my own sociological concerns without hedging or shame. Parts of it hurt, but it felt like the hurt of stretching a muscle that has fallen into disuse. When I talked to him about it, he was genuinely concerned that feelings would be hurt, and people might really dislike him after reading it ... but he felt like it was something he couldn't leave unsaid.

My own feeling is that offenses pass, while major social decisions endure. If Card's essay contributes to a course correction in our society, and we find the compromise that David Bowles, Hobbes, myself, and others are looking for, then it was a Making, as much as Arthur Stuart's temporarily-painful baptism was a Making.

As a culture, we have become far too focused on the act of offending as the ultimate evil, and it gets in the way of our ability to communicate. Personnally, I'm pretty good at finding ways to avoid offense, but when one side in a argument used their own offendability as a passive-aggressive weapon in the debate, at some point, someone is going to have to smash that barrier and get a real conversation started. It won't be me any time soon, but I can't fault the one who does it.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
We give married folks a tax break and we subsidize their insurance benefits because we hope they are in the process of raising future productive generations, and we want to lend them a hand.

If gay couples want to raise children then we should help them as well by offering them the same marriage benefits.

It is not in our nation's interest to offer marriage tax benefits or insurance subsidies to any other sort of couple who is not demonstrating an interest in raising children. In my mind they're no better or deserving than single folks, living the single lifestyle.

I think we should attach the tax and insurance benefits to the children and not to the adults. Tax all adults equally, married or not, unless there are dependant children involved.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Bok- they did it with a deadline. Which seems more like an ultimatum. And I've been replying to you. Bok and stalk. They rhyme.

OSC outright calls on the masses to unmake an America they don't approve of, to unmake a society ruled by "barbarians." I don't think he'd quibble with you calling him an unmaker. Just as he would call for unmaking a society that embraced slavery.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
I doubt he was genuinely concerned about peoples' feelings when he made up that molesting "deep dark" secret crap. OSC has written some great fiction, but he's just as much of a bigot as any KKK member.

[ February 24, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I've noticed that now that "homophobic" has been proven, over and over, to be a ridiculous taunt, the favorite invective of choice for those who do not wish to deal with issues and prefer to simply hurl names is now "bigot."
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
A practical concern about homosexuals having children is that our healthcare system is already strained. With the graying of the baby boomers underway, healthcare rationing is an ugly possibility. So I wouldn't be in support of diverting resources to IVF and reproductive cloning. But if they want to adopt unwanted children, it could conceivably be a boon to society. Strained = healthcare going from 5% of the GNP to 17% of the GNP
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

you would not believe the mental acrobatics I go through trying not to be offensive when bringing up my own concerns

---

quote:

---

odouls, s^^t is offensive to me. See, there is cloaking nastiness in politeness, and there's plain crudeness. Neither is the road not taken

---

quote:

---

But if they want to adopt unwanted children, it could conceivably be a boon to society.

---

quote:

---

You left out emos and 4th graders

---

Taken care of AFR

 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Bigot is a strong word, let's make sure we are using it correctly (a.k.a.I like to play round 2 of Ayelar's game):

Bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Intolerant

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 


Right on.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Defining the names you hurl does not make it any more of a cogent argument.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I still respect the man, and his craft and skill in that craft. That is not affected by him expressing his opinions.

It is affected, though, by an undercurrent I read, *felt*, when I read the essay. The man is entitled to his opinion, and I respect his right-and indeed his skill-in presenting it. Nonetheless, as someone who frequently agrees with him, I can't help but express my opinion too, that the essay was at least partially motived by derision, contempt, and something close to bigotry.

I don't know if it's towards forces in our culture today assaulting larger values and taking on bigger issues that homosexual marriage (incidentally, I do think there are such groups, but I don't think their agenda is secret).

I personally agree that the Mayor has overstepped his power, and that willy-nilly piecemeal legal endorsement of homosexual marriage isn't the way to go. That's because judicial activism (or mayoral activism, heh) is only OK when it's a decision you support. I am undecided on issues of whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to raise children-although I lean towards a 'yes' answer on that issue. I don't even think that simple opposition to homosexual marriage makes one a bigoted homophobe.

But I still felt that there were really nasty undercurrents in Card's essay. I can't say whether or not it was directed towards homosexuals or larger anti-conservative social value groups, but I'm frankly suspicious that it was at least partially towards homosexuals as a group. I cannot imagine that OSC would speak this way to a homosexual in directly and specifically.

I don't know. I remember reading Songmaster more than once, and I forget the character's name. A homosexual man who loved Ansett and the female protagonist (Kya Kya?). I'm not good with names but I remember the story very well. Despite his not coming to a good end at all, I still think OSC treated him (the homosexual man) with respect as a human being. He was a person, worthy of respect. He was loved and loved others. He had honor and intelligence. He wasn't a caricature by any means, he was a character who was defined not by his homosexuality (among other percentages), but by what sort of man he was. I came off the book-numerous times-thinking that Josif (was that his name?) was a good man, a man I'd feel grateful to know and happy to call a friend. I can't recall if I read that before reading Card's opinions on political-social issues, but I can certainly say that if I knew Card disapproved of Josif's lifestyle when he wrote that, it didn't seem to affect his evaluation of Josif as a man and a human being. That's what I took from that book, about this particular character and issue.

When I read this essay, and other essays on the subject, I don't get that impression anymore. Far from it. Don't know you very well, Karl, but I think you're a kinder man than me. I'm angry and disappointed enough as it is, a straight man disagreeing on a political and social opinion, having only met perhaps a half-dozen (that I know of) homosexuals in my life. I say you're a kinder man than me because in your situation, I think, I wouldn't feel depressed or betrayed or greatly hurt, I'd be furious. Just thinking about the essay now is getting me pretty pissed off. I'm sorry you've taken a shot to the chin like this, Karl.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 

quote:

---

I doubt he was genuinely concerned about peoples' feelings when he made up that molesting "deep dark" secret crap.

---

quote:

---

I don't know what the proportions are on how many would want to get married if it weren't for the need to do a political demonstration.

---

quote:

---

I've noticed that now that "homophobic" has been proven, over and over, to be a ridiculous taunt, the favorite invective of choice for those who do not wish to deal with issues and prefer to simply hurl names is now "bigot."

---

Or the person might actually be a bigot and someone who is equally bigoted doesn't want to deal with the fact. *shrug*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Oh good grief.

Edit: Okay, I missed that that the above was a different person, not harping from the same person. I now apologize and change the above eye-rolling to a noogie. It's Hatrack. I should have known better.

[ February 24, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
By that definition of bigot, everyone is a bigot in some way.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
See, in my head I believe you, and tend to agree with you in fact.

But here's the thing. Card is an excellent writer, a powerful communicator. I believe he is entirely capable of being far more persuasive than he is, in my opinion, being while at the same time being less insulting-as I feel he's being.

In short I think he could make the point you're saying he's making, without leaving this bad taste in my mouth and without pissing me off. So I'm left to wonder a few things. One of them Olivet mentioned: does he want to seperate the issues, or does he want someone like me pissed off when I read his writing? Is he just angry and shooting from the hip? Or is the bad taste in my mouth an accurate reflection of intent?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
OSC on tolerance:

quote:

---

Tolerance is not the fundamental virtue, to which all others must give way. The fundamental virtue is to love the Lord with all our heart, might, mind, and strength; and then to love our neighbor as ourself. Despite all the rhetoric of the hypocrites of homosexuality about how if we were true Christians, we would accept them fully without expecting them to change their behavior, we know that the Lord looks upon sin without the least degree of tolerance, and that he expects us to strive for perfection.

---

quote:

---

I think the "deep dark secret" part is utterly irrelevant. If someone is sexually molested in a heterosexual fashion, and they grow up to be a heterosexual, is their heterosexuality spawned from a deep, dark secret?

---

quote:

---

If he is angry at anyone, it isn't gays, but social liberals.

---

Oh, he's pissed at me. That makes me feel much better.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
mack

Much better to have someone mad at you for your opinions than for your feelings, your race, your heritage, or anything else you have little control over. At least you can be proud of earning it
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
I would like to take a break from my OSC bashing and give Dog some props. He has certainly been placed in a tough position and has handled it as well as anyone.

(I had a snide comment about how I think Dog is heroically well-adjusted, but I'll save that for the day I'm banned from this forum )
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I agree, Beren. I think both Geoff and Karl have been incredibly patient and cogent in the unenviable position of being spokespeople here.


 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Go me!

Actually, you do have a point. I chose to be liberal...I call myself a reformed conservative.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Thanks a lot, Beren, and everyone else who's said kind things to me during this process. I only hope my boss doesn't find out how much effort I'm expending on this, rather than on the gameflow document I'm supposed to be writing ...
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
the Deep dark secret thing also puzzled me. But even if it is the case, it's not a reason to disallow them to raise children as a lot of folks were subject to abuse as children. Though disallowing them to raise children was not his aim either.

I think a lot of folks are gay because people of their own gender are easier to get along with. But OSC also implied this in the beginning of his argument. Men loving men and women loving women is not an achievement of civilization.

The "disease" he kept referring to is the promotion, by the entertainment industry and the Ivory Tower, that non traditional family structures are superior (not merely as good as) traditional family structures. While I'm not expert in evidence they are worse, I don't think there is evidence they are better.

I think the traditional family is more than a fundamental unit of society. I think society exists to serve the traditional family. But that's my religious belief.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 

quote:

---

Come on. It was WAY better than Jack Chick. You're striking low now, Ryuko.

---

I didn't mean to imply that I thought OSC was worse than Jack Chick. YUK. Nothing of the sort. I just meant that when I was reading the essay, I couldn't help but think of the arguments that Chick and people who think the way he does make. It doesn't help that I showed some friends a few of the more humorously offensive tracts last night...
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Much has been made of the harmful effects of allowing homosexuals to marry. What about the benefits?

Whatever you think of them, whatever you think of their origins, I submit that we will always have a percentage of homosexuals in our society. Why not offer a way for them to form lasting bonds with each other? Why not allow them to adopt, especially since we're not exactly hurting for parentless kids? It's not like they're going to go away any time soon.

Why not let them pair off? If anything the level of promiscuity among homosexuals should go down.

I perceive human sexuality as a spectrum. The bulk are heterosexual. A few are incredibly heterosexual. Some are homosexual. Some are bi. People may move back and forth on this spectrum throughout their lives, most may stay perfectly still. A few even have no sex drive whatsoever, a condition which must surely be more offensive to "Nature" than any other as there is no chance for progeny at all. I don't especially care whether a person's position on this spectrum is genetic or learned or chosen or caused by what color booties they were given at the hospital.

I see gay people being told their love is less than it should be, that they cannot parent as well as anyone else. I also see straight people abusing and mocking marriage, and doing everything they can to avoid having to personally raise their kids, and I wonder why we would hold gay people to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. Why are gays being prevented from marrying because they can't match the ideals that most straight marriages can't match?
I mean, these are people who consider marriage such an important thing that they are willing to risk public embarrassment, censure, picketing, and social estrangement to get it. These are people who treasure children so highly that they'll adopt the kids others don't want.

I can certainly see how permitting people to form lasting, committed relationships will threaten straight marriage. But do you know what I think is a bigger threat to straight marriage?

"The Littlest Groom."
The constant reinforcement of the notion that any marriage without "the spark" is dead.
The trophy wife.
The romanticising of adultery.
"My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
Poverty levels that don't acknowledge the rising costs of housing, one of the contributing factors of the now-mandatory two-income family.
"Married by America."
The loss of the extended family due to urbanization and social change.
"The Bachelor."
Brittney Spear's 52 hour wedding.
The concept of "irreconciliable differences" being applied to anything at all.
The glamourizing of celebrities and their multiple divorces.

Letting a couple of guys sign a paper and kiss in front of a clerk doesn't bother me nearly as much as "Joe Millionaire" did.

[ February 24, 2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I don't blame or condemn Card for his views or his manner of expression of them. His opinion, his right to say it, and I can see in his words the desperation of a man seeing something he loves being destroyed for trivial reasons without respect or consideration for others. How can you fault a man who sincerely fears for his country and his children's future and uses his considerable abilities to save them?

I don't agree with him, and some of his opinions sadden me more than I can say, but I can still respect him.

[ February 24, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Points to Geoff and Karl, as has already been said.

I'm not going to weigh in on the homosexuality issue or on the homosexual marriage issue, though. I have just one tangentially related thing to say:

I generally don't like editorials, or editorial writing. I feel that they polarize debate rather than fostering it. I will again draw the analogy to Bowling for Columbine, which I disliked because of Michael Moore's overuse of sensationalist tactics. Someone who opposes gun control is not going to rethink their position after seeing BfC; nor will someone who favours it do so. Like editorial writing, BfC did not foster reasoned debate, it polarized it and shoved the two sides further apart.

I think the first few pages of this thread show fairly clearly that this column has more or less done the same thing for this debate. IMO, if it was a calmly worded essay, rather than a piece of editorial writing, there wouldn't be so many hurt posters here today.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I pronounce Bok with the 'o' sounding liek 'boat'. I could be wrong tough, since the name itself is in a fictional dialect

It's standard operating procedure to have a deadline, in this case 6 months. The reason being, those that have been affected negatively by the conflict of law and constitution ought not have to wait for the affects of the reconciliation any longer than necessary for the laws to be reconciled. This is the case regardless of what constitutional issue is ruled on.

Once the law is found unconstitutional, the onus is (rightly, IMO) on the legislature to rectify the law as soon as possible.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I'm glad this thread has come around to being more reasonable.

Thanks Bok, Chris et al, for making this whole bucket of shite stink less.

*weak smile*

I'm on my own this week, and honestly, I've let myself get too involved here today. I'm sorry.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
*hugs Olivia*


 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thanks, Twinky. You have nice legs.

But seriously, I'm sorry if anything I said hurt anybody's feelings. I never intended any personal attacks, (and I really don't think I leveled any), but if it felt that way to Geoff or anybody, I'm sorry.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

I find it really interesting, too, to see the generational divide - many of the "older" folks who have raised their families fall into OSC's camp, and many of us "younger" ones take a more liberal view. I wonder if it has anything to do with an age perspective.

---

quote:

---

More than eight out of 10 Asian-American children in the United States live with both parents, a rate of two-parent families significantly higher than for any other racial or ethnic group, according to a new Census Bureau study.

---

I demand that all non-Asian "marriages" be reclassified as civil unions. Non-Asian marriages are less stable than Asian marriages and thus they are a threat to my people's way of life.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Ela, that's just how it appears in my neck of the woods. Really conservative elders, somewhat more liberal middle agers, and completely clueless youth who parrot their parents' views.

I just want y'all to know I love Hatrack. I'm really disturbed by the fierce fighting this issue has caused. I don't know why gay marriage is worse than child abuse or trampling freedoms in the name of protecting our country or paving our natural resources until the nation is made of concrete and oil. I wish more Americans would get riled up over those issues.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
So do I. I wish the right would stop acting like homosexuality is the worse thing in the world.
If they could spend this much energy on children...
Why can't there be a bill in congress to prevent child abuse? It's sickening really.
But it shows society has to change.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Syn, there are a number of laws on the books to combat child abuse.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Syn: No one's going out of their way to try to legalize abuse against children, except NAMBLA.

Child abuse is already illegal, last I checked-- no bill necessary.

Now, extra funding for prevention of child abuse. . . that's debatable. And as nearly controversial as bills allowing homosexuality.

From C.S. Lewis:

quote:

---

And [this] is why I cannot give pederasty [homosexuality] anything like a first place among the evils of the Coll. There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? ... The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, niether Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell, but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.

---

 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
it's not nessasary having a bill to say marriage is between men and women only
seems so... superfluous.

unrelated-
society would be better if there were more people raising children. Not just 2 parents but a lot of mentors, other relatives and people that are trustworthy to help kind a child.
especially with single mothers. instead of criticising them, why not put more support into big brother and big sister programs and other such mentor programs.
which reminds me... i need to start volunteering!
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Geoff, I appreciate your posts. I don't envy your position and I think you give your father greater leeway than he deserves (or may even want, for all I know), but I understand your defense of him and I agree that some posts on this thread have been just as out of line and counter-productive to rational debate as his article. I appreciate your words to me, specifically, and I'm humbled to know that my posting here makes any kind of difference. (I'd better watch myself more closely ) (/to Geoff)

I understand that an author will write to a particular audience. Implying that this article wasn't written to me (or to an audience that includes me) doesn't make it any less offensive. It only makes it like walking up behind a friend who is bad-talking you to strangers.

I fully understand where OSC is coming from in terms of his religious beliefs. I know LDS doctrine and the LDS worldview from the inside. The doctrine, I once believed. The worldview, I once held. I did not give any of that up lightly. I understand the frustration OSC must feel, believing what he does and seeing what we can all see of the world today. Even as an agnostic/atheist, I can recognize things in the world that are detrimental to peaceful society. Even as a gay man with no children of my own I can see the precious value of children and the extreme importance of raising them to be responsible, fully functioning, human beings. Also, even as a gay man, I can see many ways I can be a part of the process of raising society's children, maybe even an important part at least to certain individual children.

What I can't see (and I don't think this is due to bias or "being too close to the situation") is any way in which my getting married to the man I love and living in society as a married couple either diminishes any other straight couple's marriage or makes it any harder to raise their children in a healthy way.

What I got from OSC's essay is that he seems to claim [I orginally wrote "believe" but I don't think he really believes this] that most men (or at least enough of them to break a critical societal threshold) only stick with parental responsibility to the degree that they do because they can still claim ownership of a word that homosexuals can't. The problems he sees with the state of marriage today are real, and his fears about the near wholesale lack of responsibility and commitment in relationships are fears I share. And those fears become all the more intense when there are children involved. But this is clearly a situation that has come about not at all because homosexuals want to marry. The current state of marriage in this country is solely the result of straight attitudes towards it. Gays haven't been able to marry for all the years of current American society, yet now, somehow, we are the scapegoat for what will happen to marriage if this changes.

"But let's not make things worse when we don't know what will happen if we mess with the status quo." Well, let's say the radical right wins the battle. Let's say a Constitutional Amendment is passed that lays down the law once and for all that "marriage", by definition, is between a man and a woman only. On that day will we hear the clang of the re-forging of the pillars that support the "traditional" family? Will deadbeat husbands run home to their wives and hug their children because now "marriage" has real meaning? Will children know that because those two odd guys who live in the apartment across the hall are "just roommates", well then it must mean that mommy and daddy really do love each other more?

The current uproar over this issue, including the article by OSC, is the desperate reaction of self-appointed keepers of American Morality who have failed to inspire loyalty to family through love and now must turn to inspiring loyalty through fear. The problems are real, but the target of the fear and despair is the wrong one. It is not only unfair and irrational to blame homosexuals and some conveniently-defined "liberal elite" for the destruction of the family, it is counter productive and could ultimately lead to further weakening of the idea of marriage.

I don't doubt that there are some gay couples rushing to get married in San Francisco because it will make them feel like crusaders. Some might have the idea of a political stand in their heads more than the love for their partner. Some of these marriages might even end in divorce, if they survive the legal challenges, because they were largely built on what will then be a moot political point. It's not inconceivable. That is precisely why I, myself, wouldn't get married there now even if I had the money to fly myself and my partner out there. My love for him is such that I don't want any hint of ulterior motive present in the expression of it. But if (God! how I hope thats "when") the day comes that I can legally marry him, I will honor those who are making the political stand now that will make this possible.

And what do I hope to gain? Well, legal recognition of my relationship with my partner. The elimination of all the extra pitfalls and legal issues and entanglements that I would otherwise have to go through to share fully my life with him that a married couple avoid under the umbrella of "marriage". The added protections of being married. Would I bring a child into this? Who knows. I think I could be a good father. Hell, I think I could be a better mother than the average. And I know that Chris has the qualities that make and outstanding member of society regardless of gender. I know I'm already a better person for his influence. The world will be better and safer if he can transmit those qualities to any child.

But if there are no children? Is the marriage then a sham? Is it more a sham than any childless heterosexual couple? "But they, at least provide role models for a healthy (read "straight") marriage. Won't it harm children to see a gay marriage as a viable alternative? Won't they be taught by example that the whims of their sexual urges are more important than reproducing and raising healthy children?" Well, since when has the fact of heterosexuality been --in and of itself-- a supplier of good role modeling? OSC, your children don't have to watch TV to see examples of disfunction. I was Mormon, once, too. Let me tell you there are plenty of examples of disfunction in the pews next to you. Spend your energies fighting to eliminate that kind of disfunction and you will save marriage for all of us, gay and straight.

[edits for spelling or otherwise explained in context]

[ February 25, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
KarlEd, you shine. I am so very glad the world has you in it.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
(((KarlEd))) What she (CT)said.

You know, not long ago I voted in and American family poll about the 'gay marriage issue' and I was shocked to read that they pulled the poll, because the results were not what hey wanted. *scowl*

I think it's just really hard for people who think they are right to accept that maybe most people don't actually agree with them.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61982,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
KarlEd, you are awesome. My thoughts exactly.
People need to mind and take care of their own fences...
That's how you build a good society.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
One reason members of the LDS church do not support gay marriage is their beliefs about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman. We believe that no one can fully realize his or her potential, i.e. exaltation, or becoming like God, without being married by the proper authority under the proper circumstances. A man cannot be exalted without his wife to whom he is married for eternity. A woman cannot be exalted without her husband, to whom she is married for eternity. This strong belief in the continuity of the afterlife, and how our time and actions on earth affects it, drives much of the LDS perspective on things.

We also believe that everyone can have this great gift of exaltation. It may not be easy to get to the point where one is ready to be married in this manner, and life is certainly not over afterwards. But those who try to direct their lives toward this end will have the help of God, and ways will be opened for them so that they can accomplish this. We believe that true and lasting happiness comes from following this principle.

The other way around, supporting and condoning marriage any way people want to have it, would be supporting choices and lifestyles that cannot lead to exaltation. They might bring happiness in this life, but not lasting happiness in the life to come. Having the door open to choose a marriage that cannot become an eternal marriage goes against the mission of the church. The church will always puts its efforts into helping people toward eternal marriage in the temple--despite the seeming impossibility of that event in many people's lives.

This does influence how many LDS members respond to this issue, although there hasn't been too much of a religious take in this thread. It's not entirely a religious issue, but I just wanted to add that perspective.

[ February 25, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
AfR, is it the position of the Mormon church that all actions which do not lead to the highest levels of heaven should be illegalized, even for non-Mormons?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
KarlEd, my thanks also for your contribution.

Now to meander a bit -- one defense OSC would likely put up for my accusation that he is incorrectly representing the marital practices of the longest lasting civilizations is that while the upper classes practiced such things as polygamy, the majority of the population did not.

I feel that fact is, if anything, a stronger counter to his arguments -- despite having multiple accepted forms of marriage in discriminate populations (sound familiar?) these societies lasted quite long. This is counter to OSC's proposition that having a differing form of marriage (in this case, homosexual. In my historical counterexamples, polygamous w/concubines -- which I would submit is far more different from what we currently have than homosexual marriage would be) results in the undermining of the benefits of the social structure built around monogamous, heterosexual marriages.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
afr, that's a perfectly fine belief to hold. The problem is that lots and lots of other people in this country do not share the same belief, and don't want those who do making decisions on their behalf based on a religion they don't follow.

Doesn't that make sense? My religion taught me that going to doctors and believing in medicine was a waste of time, if not even a little harmful. But do you want me pushing for legislation that prevents you from taking your child to the hospital if she breaks an arm?
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
So... MY marriage, not being exalted, is not equal to theirs in their view. Hmm. I'm actually okay with that. It's the idea that any group can claim ownership of an IDEA that I find disturbing.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(Ayelar, thanks. Spot on.)
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
(Thanks, CT, and I want you to know that I really respect doctors and the good they do for their patients, even if I'm not usually one of them.)
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Understood, AFR. And that is why I am no longer Mormon. I do not seek to change what the LDS church is. I do not ask it to accept me or to change its ways to include me. Time will tell if the LDS church will stand against the changes in society and whether it will change itself, flourish unchanged, or fade into irrelevance. I don't really care which. What I do care about is being forced toward someone else's idea of salvation.

Tell me where the cliff is all you want, but let me make up my own mind whether it's really the danger you believe it is. I absolve you of any responsibility for my soul.

[ February 25, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(Ayelar, I was responding as a Hatracker, not a physician. That part didn't even occur to me, oddly. But I thought your analogy was very helpful, and I respect you as always. Well-thought and well-stated.)
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Okay-- I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not homosexuals have a right to petition for equal rights.

I think we all understand that everyone has a right to try and influence the government, Mormons included, for whatever purpose they have in mind, for whatever reason they want to list.

Correct?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Certainly. For what purpose do Mormons intend to force their religious views on the rest of us, exactly, though?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
To augment the food supply, dummy.

Duh.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, the reasons may be religious, but whatever the reasons, we consider a good action to follow, and so plan to lobby for that action.

Why do you request we be liars in either our religion or our politics?
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I must concur with the others.

Thank you OSC for your concern and your desire to save my soul and that of everyone in the US.

However, I do not believe it is neccesary, and I find it a bit arrogant that you think it is.

Believing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior is a more basic requirement to saving my soul in most Christian religions (including LDS I believe), but I don't see mass protests that such against Jewish Temples where such proclamations are fround upon.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Believing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior is a more basic requirement to saving my soul in most Christian religions (including LDS I believe),

---

Dan, that's inflammatory. And wrong.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I just think it's ironic that a group which actually fled the country to escape religious persecution -- imposed "for the good of society," as it was believed then -- has thoroughly rationalized religious persecution for the good of society.

It's not an uncommon tale -- the Puritans basically left England to be free to oppress other people in the way of their choice -- but I can't help wondering when it will occur to society that it's the oppression itself that's the problem, and that people will tend to behave morally when given the opportunity.

It depresses me to think that I'm actually more optimistic about human nature than people who believe that humans were made in the image of a god.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Tom, how come you can bring that up but we can't?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Karl, was that "I would be a better mother than average" supposed to be funny or hurtful?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Where have I suggested that you can't bring something up?

And, again, let me point out that arguing that people should be free to marry in the way that they wish is NOT exactly equivalent to arguing that people should be free to marry only in the way that you wish. One argument continues to permit those who wish to engage in marriage under their standards and conditions to do so; the other prevents the alternative.

-----

Not to speak for Karl, or anything, but I suspect he WOULD be a better mother than the average; the average mother in this country doesn't necessarily do a stellar job -- particularly if you buy into OSC's argument that most of our moral decline is due to the failure of families to properly raise their children. On the other hand, I don't think anyone here should feel insulted by Karl's observation, unless they think of themselves as a purely average parent.

[ February 25, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Oh, we just had this conversation before and coming from our direction, it was illogical and non proportional.

I don't lay claim to being a greater than average parent. I'm just doing my best. I just feel defensive that gay men are dismissive of women's contribution to society. But Karl usually seems really warm and friendly. That's why it kind of shocked me.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I didn't get where he was dismissive. His claim that he might be a better parent is, at most, boasting (and probably accurate), it's not putting anyone else down.
I'm straight, married, and a father, and I'm a better parent than many mothers I've met. My wife is better with my kids than I am or ever will be. Based solely on what I've read posted by KarlEd, he can babysit for me whenever he likes. This weekend would be good, actually.

Edited to add: no, I wouldn't leave my kids with someone I'd just met. He'd have to go through the interviews, the blood tests, and the deep scan background checks, just like everybody else...

[ February 25, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 

quote:

---

AfR, is it the position of the Mormon church that all actions which do not lead to the highest levels of heaven should be illegalized, even for non-Mormons?

---

quote:

---

afr, that's a perfectly fine belief to hold. The problem is that lots and lots of other people in this country do not share the same belief, and don't want those who do making decisions on their behalf based on a religion they don't follow.

Doesn't that make sense? My religion taught me that going to doctors and believing in medicine was a waste of time, if not even a little harmful. But do you want me pushing for legislation that prevents you from taking your child to the hospital if she breaks an arm?

---

quote:

---

So... MY marriage, not being exalted, is not equal to theirs in their view. Hmm. I'm actually okay with that. It's the idea that any group can claim ownership of an IDEA that I find disturbing.

---

quote:

---

Understood, AFR. And that is why I am no longer Mormon. I do not seek to change what the LDS church is. I do not ask it to accept me or to change its ways to include me. Time will tell if the LDS church will stand against the changes in society and whether it will change itself, flourish unchanged, or fade into irrelevance. I don't really care which. What I do care about is being forced toward someone else's idea of salvation.

Tell me where the cliff is all you want, but let me make up my own mind whether it's really the danger you believe it is. I absolve you of any responsibility for my soul.

---

quote:

---

Our liberal friends assure us they would never restrict our religious practices.

---

quote:

---

Again, the people making the decisions on behalf of others aren't doing it as official representatives of their respective churches. And there are plenty of decisions being made on my behalf by people who don't share my religious beliefs. It's going both ways.

I firmly believe in going to the hospital if you break your arm, and would oppose legislation that would prevent it. That's me, as a citizen. You, as a citizen, can push for what you want, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are representing your church when you do it, even if you are acting according to your church's teachings. OSC doesn't officially represent the church any more than I do, and I don't think he's trying to.

---

afr, I agree that none of us can or do claim to officially represent a church. What I was trying to say, though, was that official or not, making decisions for other people based purely on religious beliefs that they don't share is misguided at best.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Marriage is an IDEA and poeple are claiming wonership of it.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
(pooka: I voted for GWB. I had always considered myself a conservative, but recently the definition of conservative seems to have changed. I suppose I'd call myself a moderate.)

[ February 25, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Ayelar:

But who said anything about basing decisions solely on religious belief? I haven't. If I think something's a bad idea, like not taking your broken arm to the hospital, I don't need religious belief to tell me so.

Though I'd say my belief system permeates many of my thoughts, actions, and reactions. That's true of everyone, religious or not. Where else do you get meaning but from your notions of how the world works?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You are saying it is fine for people to believe something, but not act on their beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
So. . . people's lives can only be controlled on the merits of secular philosophy?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In general, yes. If an idea loses its validity outside of the context of a religion, how can it have any meaning for someone who doesn't believe in that religion?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Communities:

There are the communities of a Church, Neighborhood, State, and Country. Lets take those for example.

The community of the Church has rules, responsibilities, and an understood code of conduct. Lets say that it encompasses the members of the Church, at the very least when the members are in the Church or doing things for the Church.

The community of the neighborhood has rules, responsibilities, and an understood code of conduct. This is sometimes tangible, in a Neighborhood Contract that households sign, or understood and enforced by local laws. It is composed of the people who live within that community, and those that visit the homes in the community.

The community of the state has laws and obligations. The members are the citizens of the state and visitors to the state.

The community of the country has laws and obligations. The members are the citizens of the US and visitors to the US (though sometimes visitors are held by slightly different laws. Those laws are explicitly stated, however).

-------
The concern stated earlier in another thread is that once same-gender marriages were legalized, the social liberals would attempt to "extend" this view to impinge on the sovereignty of their Church. The Church is a private sector, honored by the laws of the country and state to have a certain degree of sovereignty within their community. Certain things are judged unallowable, like murder and child abuse, within the community as they are unallowable within the state and country communities at large. It has been accepted that private institutions that run separate from state and country funding have the ability to discriminate. To choose members by an internal code, to assemble and discuss what they want. These rights will be protected whether or not homosexual marriage is legalized. After all, women gained the right to vote, but a Church can legally exclude women from their parish.

Unfortunately, the problem that some people have is the perception that members of the Church community want their code of conduct to extend to the Country community. Is it wrong to want to extend a code of conduct? In a sense, no.

Lets say there was legislation to equalize women's pay in the workforce by auditing companies in certain ways. How do we define if it's "right" for a male-dominant Church to oppose it? They have a legal right to make their opinion known. But in a way, they're opposing the legal right to equality. They have a moral right under their Church to insist that society would suffer as women don't have the mental capacity to use money effectively. But they are morally wrong to many by insisting that women are lesser than men. So are they allowed to expend money to pursue the arrest of this legislation? I guess so. But when do the courts get to decide whose view is correct or the best for society? What neutral entity decides? And what power should a subset community have on the larger community?
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Olivet: I'd say we're promoting marriage at its fullest potential--not just as an idea, but as an institution. Not owning it.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Sun-- The Constitution of our country decides that, and the courts are our method of determining that decision in an as unbiased way as possible.

That is why high on the list of constitutionally mandated rights is the Freedom of Religion. It states, far more than the idea that a church cannot get involved with the state, that the state cannot impinge its opinion on the church.

That is why, allowing Gay Marriages will not lead to demanding gay marriages in your church.

I like your four tiered community description. What I see this fight about is the idea that the acceptance of the gay community has reached high points in three of those levels, and was begining to reach points in many church communities. The decision to ban such marriages was a reaction, not to un-Christian behavior by non-Christians, but a defence of Conservative values with in the churches themselves. In a wonderful feat of informational slight of hand, they have promoted this crusade not as an attempt to bypass liberal/conservative discussion within the church community, but as a Christian v.s. Liberal Heathen argument.

Kath: I apologize if my critique crossed the line into bad form. The idea that legally mandating baptism is equal to legally out-lawing homosexual relationships may seem overly dramatic, and was done with an insensitive abruptness.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Chris: Your belief system would include your religion, but not be limited to it. And the context in which things have meaning for you overlaps that of others in many points. Otherwise, how would we understand each other at all? How would 300 million people (willingly) coexist under one government? I submit that if someone doesn't share your religious beliefs, their ideas aren't necessarily meaningless to you. They're not completely out of your own context. There are many different directions in which to understand your fellow human beings.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"So. . . people's lives can only be controlled on the merits of secular philosophy?"

As a side note, Scott, how does permitting a gay man to marry another gay man control your life, or limit your freedom to marry whom you wish?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I just think we need to take things a little more slowly. I think it was a different thread where they compared this to forced integration (with forced integration being a good thing). But integration had been over 100 years in coming since having been made legal. I think the mainstream (whatever that is) should have a chance to deal with the problems that already afflict marriage before turning over the meaning of the word.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Tom, if a white guy paints his face black and applies to a college as a black man, does that hurt blacks?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would argue that the mainstream has had 2000 years to deal with the problems that afflict marriage, and well over 150 years to deal with the problems that afflict the modern definition of marriage, and yet don't seem to be getting any better at "fixing" it. Should we expect people to wait indefinitely, until a solution is found that has so far eluded hundreds of generations?

------

pooka: no, unless the school has only a limited number of slots dedicated to black students. And if that's the case, your analogy is broken; two gay men marrying do not prevent a heterosexual couple from marrying, as there's no functional limitation on the number of marriages that can be performed.

[ February 25, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, it doesn't if they are applying to a school that has as part of it's rules/bylaws that race doesn't matter in any way, as far as admission criteria are concerned.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, let's look at divorce. It used to be that people who should get divorced didn't. I don't know that the popularization of divorce has helped, because women who like being victims still find reasons to stay. But I think the divorce "problem" is mainly in the last few decades.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
In the Soul Man analogy, though, isn't it still offensive?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Karl, you are a beautiful man. I wish I knew more people like you - calm yet passionate, loving even under attack. I have no doubt you would be an excellent parent.

I was raised among people who mostly think as OSC on the issue of public homosexuality. It's hard to be able to see both sides of the issue, and even though I don't agree with "forbidding" homosexual marriage, I understand the people who would do so.

Olivia, I think you said it best - marriage is an IDEA, and it exists in the mind only. That doesn't make it any less real, but it does make it infinitely malleable in interpretation. Think of Love, Peace, Art, Hate, War. All ideas, with varying interpretations.

So, I am wondering something. Does "Civil Union", with all the same legal rights and privileges as "Holy Matrimony", mean the same thing? Could people who don't want religious marriage have a civil union, and be content to call it that? What's the difference between the two? I'm just wondering if perhaps a public compromise could be reached - allowing unions of homosexual and other couples without the divisive word marriage. Is it a matter of semantics or is it something else?

I am really aggrieved by this situation, because I live in the heart of a community that celebrates "National Day of Prayer" and prays against the pagans and homosexuals as well as asking support for our leaders and grace for our homes. I don't understand how all this can go hand-in-glove. I don't know quite how to dispel the misinformation and prejudice I see all around me. I want to be a bridge builder, yet I don't know how.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would argue that the divorce "problem" is merely reflective of the fact that, in the past, women were generally trapped in loveless and abusive marriages.

It's true that many divorces are frivolous in nature -- but, then, most such marriages are frivolous in nature, and have been throughout history. The difference is that the availability of divorce has made it possible for people who are miserable in a frivolous or abusive marriage to escape that situation.

It can be argued that this may have led to an increase in the number of frivolous marriages. I don't believe this to be the case.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I wish war were just an idea. I guess by this definition life and death are also ideas. Which certainly is one approach.

Anyway, I used to think the marriage sanctity definition was too extreme a reaction, but I guess if I have to pick a side, that is where I would land.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So, again, let me reiterate: what about gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your marriage, pooka?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

how does permitting a gay man to marry another gay man control your life, or limit your freedom to marry whom you wish?

---

Tom-- how would confining homosexual unions to childlessness hurt anyone?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Um... it might hurt the homosexual couples who want to have kids I imagine.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
But, more to the point, it doesn't answer Tom's question. I've yet to see a religion that teaches that you are defined by the actions of those around you.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Let's ask KarlEd how he feels about being a second-class citizen again, shall we? Or how his relationship with his partner is like "playing dress-up?"

No harm there at all, I assume?
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Pooka, I didn't entend to be either funny or hurtful. The glib part of me almost wrote "most", but the serious side of me went for "average". I've known quite a few mothers. I've also known a few exemplary mothers. Were I in the position to fill that role, I'd do my level best to emulate the exemplary ones.

And far from gay men being dismissive of women's contributions to society, most of the gay men I know feel that women have gotten the short end of the stick for millennia. I, for one, think that if more men raised themselves, as fathers, to the level of parenting of the average mother there would be a lot less strife and suffering in the world. But then, I tend to believe that most people, myself included, fall somewhere short of their potential. But I also believe in self improvement. Unfortunately, most people I know are satisfied with far less than they could be.

Chris, anytime.

AFR, my response probably came across as stronger than I intended. I'm just frustrated because I feel that I genuinely do understand the religious point of view and have considered it carfully. However, I do not feel that many of the overtly religious on this board have tried even in the slightest to understand my point of view or how this situation affects genuine individuals. It is all to easy to lump us in a group, stamp "sinners" on our foreheads and thus discount any possible legitimacy our arguements may have because, hey, God's on your side anyway. Now I realize that your post wasn't doing that, but it did come across to me (partly because of timing, I guess) as putting forth the saving of my soul as a justification for denying to my what I feel is a right I should have -- a right that, if granted, does not hurt anyone in any significant way nor diminish any of their currently enjoyed freedoms. (Again, I'm sounding angry, I know. I am reacting to these ideas, not to you personally.)
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Jenny, you set up a bit of a false dilemna, since civil marriage is not "Holy Matrimony", and no one is arguing that gays should be allowed to participate in the "Holy Matrimony" of a religion that does not recognize such a pairing as holy.

I've written to my state legislator saying that while I agree with civil gay marriage, I would never vote for my home church to recognize it as equal. I just don't see the tenets of my religion as supporting it (even if I see no concrete reason for it to be so).

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
pooka, it may be offensive (in my case from a bad humor POV), I don't think it's requires legislative modification to keep people with bad senses of humor for expressing it, since it doesn't harm anyone but those who choose to associate with them.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I really don't see how allowing gay couples to marry would damage my own marriage or family life. It might mean that I'd have to re-evaluate how I tell my little girl about her options for when she grows up. She COULD marry another girl, if she wanted to.

Hmmm. Just typing that made me suddenly uncomfortable. Hmmm.

I mean, if Abby was a lesbian because she couldn't help it, that would be one thing and I'd be okay with it. But if she wanted to marry a girl and wouldn't go through that awkward dating crap just because she didn't feel like messing around with annoying boys, I'd feel like she'd be missing out on something in her life. It almost makes it too easy for girls and boys to avoid each other more and making important intimate connections. Hmmm.

I'll have to think more about these sudden thoughts. It seems that gay marriage wouldn't threaten my own marriage, but I feel awkward and uncomfortable about it when it comes to my child.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
This gay marriage thing may result in a re-think of the laws banning plural marriage. Truly liberal-minded folks must admit that plural marriages between consenting adults are just as acceptable as gay marriages.

Where will that leave the LDS Church? Will Mormons once again embrace plural marriage? Will liberal-minded folks worldwide rally in support of Mormons with multiple wives?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Then again, I wonder if it would raise the standards for both men and women to treat each other well. If women were pairing up, would guys go out of their way to become the best people they could be, so that girls would admire them and want to be with them? And vice versa?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
advice for robots - religious beliefs do indeed overlap, but only the ones that can be defined without recourse to faith should be applied as law.

Thou Shalt Not Steal is not solely a religious injunction, theft is a crime against another person with an obvious harm and an obvious victim, no faith in eternal justice needed. Same with murder, same with bearing false witness. Making a law banning certain kinds of food on certain days would be an example of religious laws that should not be forced on the entire community.

Scott R: Tom-- how would confining homosexual unions to childlessness hurt anyone?
It would harm homosexuals with kids from previous marriages, homosexuals who want to raise children with their partners, and right now it hurts the thousands of kids that aren't being adopted by straight parents.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
skillery, well I guess I'm not a true liberal then. OSC is wrong again!



Jenny, I don't see why your daughter would find dating a woman any easier than dating a man. From my anecdotal, non-scientific, experience, I've found that many women can't stand other women, by comparison to how they can handle men.

Also, my girlfriend, who grew up in a supremely liberal town, amongst many gays who were or were not in relationships, has not had it affect her one iota. This is a girl who had trouble dating, and could certainly have been a prime subject of the behavior you worry about for your daughter, except for one thing. She has absolutely no attraction to women. Which ends up being a rather large stumbling block, as you might expect.

Of course, the larger issue of your dilemma (actually gay vs. gay by convenience) is that how can you tell? Worse, what if she's bisexual, but with a predisposition to men. Her behavior could look a lot like your fear, and she might even describe in similar terms, but that doesn't mean it isn't just her sexuality expressing itself.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Gay marriage certainly would change a lot of things, societally. Entertainment would start including lots more gay characters, with more diverse portrayals. Would gay sexuality be promoted as a way for teens to be sexual without risking pregnancy? Would sexuality start to have much less of a biological meaning and much more of an entertainment preference sort of meaning? Promiscuous folks would continue to be promiscuous, and those preferring abstinence would still wait for "the one", but would their attitudes about whom they were with change?

I really am just curious, and wanting to explore the issue.

On the other hand, what if we refuse to wrestle with these issues by just "forbidding" gay marriages? Like it or not, the issue is here and it's in our faces. We must talk about it, and we must deal with it. I'm just wondering what happens next and how to roll with all the interesting things that will happen in the aftermath of decisions.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Jenny G, I like both you and jeniwren very much even if we disagree. And where we do disagree, even if strongly disagree, I feel more frustrated than angry because I like you both and wish you'd share my point of view.

Bok is right about the "false dillemma". No one in Boston or SF are fighting for "Holy Matrimony". In fact, the big irony there is if I really wanted "Holy Matrimony" I could get that from the local Unitarian Church or any one of a number of other more liberal churches across the country. I have gay friends who consider themselves married in the eyes of God (and yes, the Christian god) and think that Jesus blesses their union. Bizarre as I find that, more power to them.

But to answer the spirit of your question, were it truly possible to create a "civil union" that was equal to "marriage", sure, I'd be fine with that. However, I agree with the Mass. court. Separate but equal is seldom equal. And truly, what has been saved if something exactly equal to marriage, but called something else, is granted to homosexuals? I really want to know? Is it really just the word that Christian activist want to save? Well, why don't you settle for keeping "Holy Matrimony". I hereby give this word to the Christian community on behalf of all the homosexuals in America. (Give me a week to organize the brunch and I'll have the signatures for you. )
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

right now it hurts the thousands of kids that aren't being adopted by straight parents.

---

quote:

---

I mean, if Abby was a lesbian because she couldn't help it, that would be one thing and I'd be okay with it. But if she wanted to marry a girl and wouldn't go through that awkward dating crap just because she didn't feel like messing around with annoying boys, I'd feel like she'd be missing out on something in her life. It almost makes it too easy for girls and boys to avoid each other more and making important intimate connections. Hmmm.

---

Jenny, again, I'm sure you don't mean offense, but suggesting the above is really demeaning to me. I am not with Chris because I can't handle the frustration of dealing with a woman.

I will admit that allowing gay marriage will invariable open the closet doors all the wider. It will make it much more likely that your kids will have questions about families with two daddies or two mommies. I'd like to think that a good parent can deal with this "problem". And if parents are teaching their kids to be responsible, well adjusted people -- people who can learn to deal with others and work through differences -- then, as OSC put it, "the message of the hormones" will lead them into heterosexual marriages. And if you have a child for whom this message isn't so clear, well maybe you'll have to muster up the love and care necessary to guide them into whatever resolution is best for them. Wouldn't it be nice, if the answer turned out that they were undeniably homosexual, that they would have the option of fitting fully into society in a committed, legally recognized relationsihp, and maybe even raising a family?
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
celia, it's an argument against messing with the definition of marriage -- the marriage of two men or two women IS a new thing. Until the past 15 years, it had never been done anywhere, anywhen. Making even such a small, seemingly insignificant change like this is cause for serious pause to something as fundemental to society as marriage.

It's also an argument for strengthening divorce laws. In other words, putting the binding part back into marriage that has been loosening and slipping away for the past 30 years.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Karl, I really didn't mean it the way it came off. I'm thinking of the things I see in middle school and high school - all the stupid crap girls do as faddish things. I'd have problems with Abby wanting to wear Britney Spears-type outfits and trying to act provocatively when she isn't ready for the responsibility of inciting desire, too.

You make some very good points, and you do so very gently. You are of course right, in that I'd want her to be loved and accepted in society regardless of whom she ended up choosing as a mate.

Really, you and I are not as far apart as you might think from the way we are posting at each other. I admire you and I don't know exactly why I'm finding myself responding somewhat adversarily to some of the things posted here. I'm surprised at some of the things welling up from inside me, and I am hashing out my own various issues here on the board. Your perspective and Geoff's, so far, are the ones keeping me grounded.

I wish I were not so shielded in my community - my few gay acquaintances/friends have been online for the most part, and not folks I know intimately in daily life. Ditto for people of different races from me. It makes it harder for me to know what comes off as offensive, and why. If I have hurt you in any way, I am really sorry. And if I hurt you in the future, make sure you tell me about it so I can learn to do better.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'm against strenthening divorce laws. Even intelligent people make mistakes, one of them could be marrying the wrong person.
But they should think first. Divorce should be a last resort.
Divorce should be when you've tried conselling, you've tried compromise and you just can't get along... can't keep that connection.
But of course divorces can be preventing if people THINK before they get married.
Marriage is not something people should be casual about. The meaning has changed over thecenturies. It is more about commitment love and connection than ever!
People should not marry because they want to have sex. Or marry someone just because of their looks...or some foolish things like that.
They should be ready for the ups and downs of life
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Gay marriage doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage, Tom. As you keep saying, only something I or my husband do could do that. I just don't think marriage describes the joining of two things that are already alike. I'm pretty sure it's used in the physical sciences to describe something different. I think a lifelong commitment between two people who have decided they are important to each other can be codified, and if a religion wishes to sanctify it, they are free to do so.

But I don't think the difference between men and women can be discarded. I think the difference between men and women is actually rather important to homosexuals as much as it is to heterosexuals.

Homosexual marriage doesn't harm the sanctity of my marriage, but I feel it endangers my position in society as a woman.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
In other words, do you think that the term marriage refers to the blending of the yin and the yang, two different kinds of things? Like blending dark and light, wet and dry? Until the union of the two is a mix that could not have been otherwise without the two very different elements?
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
If the widow down the street needed help raising her two boys and couldn't find a decent replacement for their father, and my current wife consented, shouldn't I be able to take the widow and her family under my wing?

Sounds acceptable so far.

What about the poor widow's sexual needs? Who's going to take care of that?

Now even those claiming to be liberal-minded want to back off and re-think. They really do care who's playing the hornpipe with whom.

Shouldn't I be able to extend my employer's health care benefits to that poor widow? Insurance companies would scream.

Uncle Sam wouldn't be too happy either about the possibility of one tax-paying head of household harboring so many non-tax-payers.

See, it's all about sex and money.

We're not at all talking about loving, devoted fellas who want to hold hands in public.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
pooka - Your last thought is the sort of concern discussions like this should be addressing.

You know, if we went back and edited out about half of this thread, it'd be a pretty decent debate (I won't comment on which posts should go, and whether or not mine should be among them ).

[ February 25, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Ugh. Don't want to get into the yin and Yang thing.

I'm saying women are already separate and not equal to men.

I think saying men are made equally superfluous is the same as saying gays already have the right to marry.

Edit: I don't mean same, but I mean equally ignorant of the way things are and should be.

[ February 25, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Jeniwren,

You want to make divorce harder? I say go for it. I don't think marriage should be the casual thing it has become for some.

We've talked before about gay marriage and children, and I understand what you have to say, though I disagree with it and do find its underlying assumptions offensive and wrong-headed. Last time this came up, I guess we agreed to disagree, so I have no illusions of changing your mind this time. I'm sure you could say the same about me.

The underlying assumptions that I find offensive are that, 1.) it's OK to deny my relationship legal status because there is the possibility that this social change might not be entirely to your liking. 2.) Two men (or two women) couldn't provide a loving home that could produce well adjusted children.

The part I find wrong headed is that you seem to assume that because so many straight people can't successfully maintain a marriage and care for kids, well, gays would end up doing it even worse. This logic seems so blatantly, obviously illogical to me that I don't know where to begin debating it. It seems like it should be self-evidentially a non-sequitur.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Pooka - I'm confused, then. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And I really want to know, because this seems to be an important and interesting point.

(edit because this thread moves too fast and I'm not addressing Karl)

[ February 25, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Jenny Gardener ]
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 

quote:

---

Homosexual marriage doesn't harm the sanctity of my marriage, but I feel it endangers my position in society as a woman

---

quote:

---

...impacts your position as a woman??

---

1. Chemists invented a chemical that kept women from being pregnant all the time.

2. Surgeons invented methods for altering one's gender, allowing men to compete in the women's arena and vice versa.

3. Lawyers and politicians made it legal for anyone to marry a man and for anyone to marry a woman.

Consequently, you have no position as a woman, or as any other gender for that matter.

[ February 25, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
This isn't my usual thread and I'm very tempted to throw my hands up and walk away. I know nothing I say will change anyones opinion as well as I know nothing anyone else says will change mine.

That being said, I share KarlEd's thoughts on the simple illogicallity of a lot of these arguments. And I'll keep posting, if only to say, KarlEd, I support and agree with your point of view.


 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know how else to say it besides what I already said. But my view doesn't take into account the "Born Gay" doctrine.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
It’s chemistry analogy time again!

This is what I think about this argument:

Some people think that men and women are like carbon and oxygen and marriage is carbon monoxide. They can’t understand how anyone could think two carbon atoms or two oxygen atoms should be called “carbon monoxide.” It’s applying a label to a situation it doesn’t fit. It makes no sense.

Other people think that men and women are both hydrogen and marriage is diatomic hydrogen. They don’t understand why some people think that the union of two particular hydrogen atoms would change the definition of diatomic hydrogen. It’s drawing distinctions where there don’t need to be any. It makes no sense.

Once we (society as a whole) can get past repeating, “But it’s not carbon monoxide! How can you say that it is?!?” and “But I can’t see how this molecule of diatomic hydrogen can affect the molecular bonds between other models of diatomic hydrogen” we might actually get somewhere.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Or we could do a car analogy. Why does anyone need two SUVs?

Whether something is oxygen or carbon monoxide is actually fairly important in a practical setting. is there such thing as diatomic carbon? (I'm pretty sure not, but I'm not a chemist)

[ February 25, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I can't help thinking there's not as many differences between men and women. They seem to be about a few hormones away from each other.
Even in terms of anatomy they are simular...
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Um, Syn, except that bit of anatomy that defines whether one is a man or woman?

And that bit of anatomy really does affect your experiences in this world. Being a woman means dealing with breasts and periods and internal sexual organs. Yeast infections, pregnancy, and hormonal cycles.

Being a man is different, and the world looks different through male eyes.

Now, I think what we are arguing is this: Does marriage = a male/female pairbond, or can male/male or female/female pairbond also be called marriage?

At least, some people are arguing this. Others are arguing about moral/legal/social issues.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
dkw. I can't help it.

Did you really mean to choose a deadly poision and an explosive for your chemistry analogy?



AJ
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Karl, making divorce harder is a drop in the bucket. I want people to see marriage as a wall people just do not break unless there is abuse or infidelity involved. It's not even a legal thing, it's a social perception thing. I want people to be embarrassed to the core that they are seeking a divorce, unless (again) there is abuse or infidelity involved. I want the perceived pain of divorce to be greater than the pain of working things out. And I want the pain and embarrassment of getting pregnant out of wedlock to be greater than the pain of waiting to have sex until married. Does this mean I want people to be in pain? No, of course not...it means I want people, who are going to be in pain anyway, be in pain for the right things -- the pain of self-sacrifice, the pain of delayed gratification, rather than pain for the wrong things, like a divorce, which no matter how amicable, is still intensely painful.

quote:

---

The underlying assumptions that I find offensive are that, 1.) it's OK to deny my relationship legal status because there is the possibility that this social change might not be entirely to your liking. 2.) Two men (or two women) couldn't provide a loving home that could produce well adjusted children.

---

quote:

---

The part I find wrong headed is that you seem to assume that because so many straight people can't successfully maintain a marriage and care for kids, well, gays would end up doing it even worse.

---

I don't assume this either. I assume that changing the definition of marriage (and it IS a change, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge -- this was never done before 15 years ago) will have *some* effect, but because no one knows what it is, no one CAN know what it is yet, I'm not willing to sign on for what *could* be bad for marriage relationships in the future. Not today's couples -- couples 20 years from now.

Personal question, Karl, which I have wondered, and I hope it's not offensive. I don't mean it to be...it's just curiousity. Would marriage have made a difference for you and Douglas?

I'm willing to agree to disagree, again, if that's what it comes to.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
[chemical tangent]

Pooka the most common forms of elemental carbon (just carbon and nothing else) are 1) graphite which is made up of sheets of honeyecomb like layers. They are strongly bonded to thieir indivdual honeycomb layer but not strongly bonded with the honeycomb layers above and below them, which is why they flake off and make good pencil lead.

Or 2) diamond where the entire piece could actually be viewed as a single macro-molecule due to the tetrahedral uniform structure.

There are a couple of oddball variants of macro molecules of carbon like buckminsterfullerene which has the structure of a soccer ball and nanotube structures but they are much more exotic.

AJ

(So I guess the long way to the short answer is that diatomic carbon is generally unstable due to electron bond energies, though they may have manufactured it in labs. Diatomic Oxygen however is relatively stable and common. Diatomic Hydrogen in any but minute naturally occuring concentrations is pretty darn flammable... think Hindenburg.)

[ February 25, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I've noticed that many of the arguments against gay marriage tend to point out why such a union wouldn't be as good for the gay people, their children (if any), and society, as straight marriage.

Even if I granted that (which I'm not), it's not the only direction to look. I think gay marriage or its civil equivalent would be better for gays, their children (if any) and society than the current system where a class of legally-adult people are denied a chance to legally bond with each other, where foster children are denied an entire class of potential parents, where society forces a class of people to meet in secret and lie to their friends, family and employers.

It seems so self-evident to so many people that gays shouldn't marry. It seems so self-evident to me that allowing it could strengthen marriage and build a stronger society. It's more likely that both opinions are wrong, and allowing it will cause social situations the likes of which I can't imagine. But for now I see good people hurting for no reason I can understand, and that's where my head is at.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Lets say there was legislation to equalize women's pay in the workforce by auditing companies in certain ways. How do we define if it's "right" for a male-dominant Church to oppose it? They have a legal right to make their opinion known. But in a way, they're opposing the legal right to equality. They have a moral right under their Church to insist that society would suffer as women don't have the mental capacity to use money effectively. But they are morally wrong to many by insisting that women are lesser than men. So are they allowed to expend money to pursue the arrest of this legislation? I guess so. But when do the courts get to decide whose view is correct or the best for society? What neutral entity decides?

And what power should a subset community have on the larger community?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Jenny, it's a change to the LEGAL definition of marriage only. Many sympathetic to your argument don't seem to want to acknowledge that either.

You can still teach your children your definition, as exemplified through your church/religion, while saying that since the government only deals with earthly protections, it takes a limited scope for it's definition.

The government is restricted from saying gays cannot participate in the benefits and responsibilities of CIVIL marriage, but our god does, and sees holy matrimony, religious marriage, as something more restrictive.

I don't see why this would be hard to explain to a child, by comparison to other issues like human suffering, or the birds and the bees.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I think I very much agree with dkw's point though and will attempt to restate it to see if she thinks I actually am saying the same thing she is.

To some people all humans are made up of the same essential "stuff" and that the essences of the human experience are the same regardless of whether one is male or female. In other words that the biological similarities of our chromosomes are more important than the differences.

The other view is that the male and female human experiences are diametrically different and that they have completely different human experiences as a result of the difference in the X or Y chromosomes. To them there isn't a general heading of life experience "becoming a parent" but the more specific "becoming a mother" (since she is the one that actually has the child) or "becoming a father"(which does exclude the childbearing experience).

Am I getting anywhere close?

AJ
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Banna, nope. It's just been a long time since I've had chemistry, and those were the first molecules I thought of that had one each of two different elements and two of the same element.

Feel free to change the analogy to different atoms at your convenience.

Edit: that "nope" was directed at your earlier post.

[ February 25, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
yeah, dkw, I did a double take but I figured out which post the "nope" was referring to...now about the other post...


AJ

btw, did LJ go to work on Monday? I've been meaning to send her an e-mail wanting to know what she decided about Aspen.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
This may not be following in topic of current discourse, but:

quote:

---

2. Surgeons invented methods for altering one's gender, allowing men to compete in the women's arena and vice versa.

---

quote:

---

hmmm.. and on my web search, I'm showing that hermaphrodites can show up as having both male and female DNA simultaneously... this is interesting...

---

quote:

---

Destineer, that's a tacky remark.

---

quote:

---

In the US: Intersex conditions vary in frequency. CAH is the most common cause of ambiguous genitalia in the newborn. Mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) is the second most common cause of intersex conditions. Hypospadias occurs at a rate of 1 case per 300 live male births; in fewer than 1% of patients, hypospadias occurs in combination with undescended testes. A large series at Children's Hospital Boston found intersex conditions in 50% of children with hypospadias and unilateral or bilateral cryptorchidism in which the gonads were impalpable. Clinicians should suspect the possibility of an intersex condition if hypospadias and cryptorchidism occur in the same patient.
Internationally: Analysis of worldwide infant screening of 6.5 million newborns found the incidence of CAH to be 1 case per 15,000 live births. Frequency was highest in neonates of European Jewish, Hispanic, Slavic, or Italian descent.

---

quote:

---

Genetic sex, or the organization of the "sex chromosomes," is commonly thought to be isomorphic to some idea of "true sex." However, something like 1/500 of the population have a karyotype other than XX or XY.

---

quote:

---

Farmgirl: I asked him if via DNA only you can tell if someone is male or female. He says yes, absolutely.

So even if someone had a sex change to appear physically to be female, but their DNA is still male, which are they?

---

quote:

---

One of the theories he gives is that "masculine" and "feminine" are much greater concepts than male and female gender especially in the divine realm. And that actual gender becomes both more meaningful and yet irrelevant in the face of the greater ideas.

---

quote:

---

How does the LDS faith deal with hermaphroditic children at birth?

---

quote:

---

would it be *wrong* to leave the child's gender ambiguous?

---

quote:

---

why couldn't it also be OK to give up belief in some of the strange Old Testament moral rules that don't square so well with what we know about biology?

---

quote:

---

This usually means a lot of intersexuals become girls

---

quote:

---

couldn't science also give us good reason to reject some Biblical moral pronouncements?

---

quote:

---

Yes, but would the teasing actually be more severe than other kinds of mean childhood teasing? Probably not.

---

Are you serious? They'd crucify the kid. Being teased for being a bookworm would be NOTHING compared to the teasing that would come for not being able to be sorted the most basic of human divisions. I know there's dangers in picking the wrong gender, but picking none at all and hoping the kid survives childhood sounds cruel.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Mack is not going to engage in this thread for a mounting number of reasons.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Okay.

That means I need to google. Give me a bit.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
What about the teasing for being the "dumb kid" in the class as opposed to the bookworm. Or the teasing of being the worst at physical activities, because your legs aren't quite the same lengths or you have little sense of balance because your inner ear is messed up?

Childhood teasing is all cruel. I don't think it would be any more or less cruel than what children endure right now at all. Once again it is an unhealty construct of perceptions of gender (mostly learned from influential adults) that doesn't allow people to be accepted for who they actually are.

AJ
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
Before I get branded as a racist...

quote:

---

Myself: Then let him determine what gender he wants to be from one moment to the next, to suit the legal requirements of the situation. People of mixed-ethnicity do it all the time.

---

quote:

---

It's not as simple-minded as you think it is. I'm serious - it's possible to both believe in the Bible and evolution. There's lots and lots of material on this if you want to know how.

---

My impression is definitely not that it's simpleminded, although I do wonder if it might involve some doublethink.

And as a physics afficionado, evolution is not my only reason for questioning the Genesis story. I don't see how a seven-day creation could ever be compatible with the Big Bang model, or with the fact that the Earth has existed for less than half of the universe's lifetime.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat, I don't said that gender identity was entirely bad. I do think that some of the societal gender identity that takes place is extremely unehealthy. [Some parents do still tell their little girls that they *should* be bad at math and to let a man worry about it for them!] I don't see where it would be terribly advantageous in any specific situation to have one gender identity over another.

I also think that the whole point of leaving a child as an ambigous gender is so that THEY can decide which they choose to relate with, because which ever gender they do choose comes with a host of societal strings attached. At least they get to choose the strings. I can't.

AJ

[ February 25, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The human mind deals in almost every non-physical phenomenon in terms of metaphor. Since the act of Creation necessarily involved manipulations from outside space-time, where we have zero reference point, descriptions of those manipulations had to put in terms of metaphor. The 7-day story is incredibly compatible with the Big Bang theory.

I mean, we know the days don't have to be perceptually the same length to observers in different inertial frames.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Someone said there may be as many as 5 genders.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

can we have more than 2 genders, with the caveat that beyond the main two, the others are vanishingly small in numbers?

---

I think... I think this is destining people to a lifetime of never belonging anywhere. It isn't even creating a third gender, because the developmental misformations would all be different in nature.

Banna, I didn't mean it's better to be one over the other. I'm saying it's better to A definite gender that to not.

[ February 25, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat I *know* where I fall on the gender spectrum, and other than mostly biologically (I have a female reproductive system that may or may not be functional (non-functional is a distinct possiblity due to hormonal issues)) it is mostly in the male category not the female category.

What do you propose I do about it [since I don't belong anywhere]?

AJ

FYI, I self identify about 85% with my father and only 15% with my mother, in what was to external judgements, a stable 2-parent household.

[ February 25, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Why do you have to do anything?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Why do we have to *belong* to anything?


AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Why do you like Hatrack?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Because here no one actually cares whether I'm male or female, and they judge me on my ideas not my appearance.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Why is that good?

I think that's good because I prefer to hang around people whose minds I approve, rather than their looks.

[ February 25, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Because I'm *not* forced into a box that doesn't fit. With gender assignment, you are forcing a person into a box that just might not be their size or shape!

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hatrack has required no adjustmentat all? I love this place and I think/hope I belong, but I've made adjustments all over the place to be part of this society.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Nope, none. If I had to adjust to be something other than myself to be here, I probably wouldn't be here. [that sentence probably doesn't make entire sense]

My posting style has probably matured with time, but that is about it. I do occasionally change my mind on issues as the result of logical arguments, but that doesn't change my identity.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think you've made far more adjustments than you think. "Maturing" is what that adjusting process is.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I know aka kicked my ass into shape when I first joined here.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*has fond memories of the Taming of David Bowles*

You're missed around here, DB.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
To me what is disturbing about what you wrote kat is that you are thinking and hoping you belong to hatrack after being around far longer than me.

I know I belong here because I choose to be here. Belonging to hatrack is a free choice provided you don't violate the TOS. Yes, I was new for a while, but the whole issue of belonging/not belonging with regards to hatrack had never before crossed my mind.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
Speak for yourself, kat....

**smiles broadly**
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat, I don't think that I've made as many *adjustments* as you think I have. On a personal level I would be interested to know what they are. We could take it to another thread if you like, but I'm kind of enjoying the diversion in this one.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*shrug* That's a personal thing, I think. Various life events have left me a little more disbelieving in the veracity of any group. It isn't personality; this is an aquired tendency.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Did you really mean "veracity"? I've never looked at Hatrack specifically or most groups in general as "true" or "not true", but more along the lines of "what truth is here among the clutter?"

AJ

[ February 25, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I mean I don't quite believe that communities as "sums greater than the whole of their parts" really exist, but there's a chance.

It's what a sweetheart of mine once called the "we". Something greater and separate from the individuals that compose it. I know it's what communities (families) should be, but I think...the substance of it develops considerably less often than the form. Hatrack definitely has the form, and despite the huge numbers of threads and hurt feelings that are here, I think there's a very good chance the substance exists. I plan on acting as if it does.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
Sounds like you folks are winding this one down.

Did we find any common ground?

Thanks for letting newbie-me participate.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Ela, that's just how it appears in my neck of the woods. Really conservative elders, somewhat more liberal middle agers, and completely clueless youth who parrot their parents' views.

---

quote:

---

do you think variety in communities enhances it or works to its detriment or both?

---

quote:

---

Mack is not going to engage in this thread for a mounting number of reasons.

---

quote:

---

The issue, however, is not only their lack of acceptance in society, but their lack of acceptance of themselves, which society can only take a certain amount of responsibility for.

---

jeniwren, I agree and disagree. I agree that gay men need to learn to accept themselves if they are ever going to be happy, well-adjusted individuals. However, all people need to learn this, too, not just gays. And I take it from your wording that we likely disagree on the "certain amount" of responsibility society should take. I think that amount is a whole hell of a lot. Sure, at some point everyone has to look at the cards they've been dealt and decide the best way to play them. But that doesn't excuse the society that stacked the deck.

Yes, it is all too easy to play the victim and wallow in self pity. Everyone needs to find their own inner worth and discover the most productive ways to express that worth. For homosexuals (and other groups, I'm sure), society must take quite a lot of responsibility for the marginalization and oppression. So much of the self-destructive aspects that are so often associated with homosexuality are a result of the self loathing that has been taught to gays by society. They are a direct result of families and other acquaintances projecting shame and disappointment on people who do not fit the stereotypes society would have them fit. I don't think it is premature to ask society to learn a bit more tolerance. Even if they don't think they are ready for it.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
In this case the attitudes of the larger society have to change as well as the individual.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I agree.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Bob, it's part of the celia-posting-on-a-serious-thread phenomenon.

KarlEd, wouldn't asking society to admit some responsibility be asking them to admit that they're wrong in their assessment of homosexuals? Good luck.

Hmm. That's pretty pessimistic of me.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I had this thought...

I wonder if this is OSC's School Board/ANNIE issue. I mean, I'll admit I got totally wrapped around the axle over what was, ultimately, just a stupid play put on by a bunch of amateurs trying to do what they thought professionals would do. And it didn't come out of the school funds for teacher salaries or equipment. It was still wrong, but I didn't need to turn it into a crusade.

Maybe this is his big hot button issue...

When I think of it like that, I can be less disappointed in the fact that are views are so radically opposite.

Sorry to interrupt the conversation at this late date. I was just musing.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
KarlEd: Changing the public assessment of homosexuals daily.

Should I print up T-shirts?
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Can I get a KarlEd is decent people, are you? one?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
The problem is that gays can act, on the surface, respectable, whatever that means.
Act straight, cut their hair, grow their hair long if they are women.
Say things like, we are just like you and still the intolerance would exist. Especially in the form of my friend is gay, but I still think that gayness is a threat, is bad, is a sin, ect.
That's why the larger society has to change, in order to make things better for it as well as for this small minority (Which could be larger than one thinks)
It has to happen because otherwise it's like a cancer about to destroy us all.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
If the shortness of my hair is an indicator of my sexual identity, I'm going to have to have a long talk with my husband.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
((celia))

Synesthesia, I think the problem is with too many gay people accepting the public stereotype of the flaming homosexual and deciding the alternative is to hide their sexuality. What the gay community needs is for more of their closeted members to come out and accept themselves. I know a guy who is desperate for a good long-term relationship but is so paranoid that his neighbors or, heaven forbid, his parents might find out he's gay he goes to great lengths to hide the fact. He practically demands that any would-be boyfriends join him in his closet to the point that he's never going to find someone with even a tiny degree of self-respect. If he were to come out he would be much more comfortable with himself, and would be an ambassador to the greater society of what a good gay man is. And I don't mean he has to fly rainbow flags from the rooftops. He would just have to live his life. Get to know his neighbors and let them know him. Have them over for brunch (if they don't come, well that's their loss). Let them see him open the car door for a boyfriend or hold his hand. He's already a good neighbor in that he keeps his house in good repair and his lawn clean and cut. And he's lived there for years now. If he came out, only the most rabid homophobes would be able to claim at this point "there goes the neighborhood".

And sure, anecdotes aren't evidence, but I don't think the majority of Americans really even has a problem with gay people anymore. And I think OSC knows this otherwise his essay wouldn't have been such a "wake-up call" to squash our progess before we bring about the wholesale collapse of civilization.

[ February 26, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Has there ever been a thread to get to 11 pages in less than 48 hours before?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:
Has there ever been a thread to get to 11 pages in less than 48 hours before?

---

The Hug Thread and the Last Post Thread, I think.

---

Well, neither of the originals is around to check, but I'm fairly certain that neither hit even page 5 in the first 48 hours.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 


Should I have logged in as Snarky or Sarcasm first?


 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ummm, no I think it just means that my sarcasm detector is not working properly . . . Gotta have that thing checked.
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
I don't have time to read the whole article, but I wanted to comment on one bit...

quote:

---

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

---

quote:

---

2004-02-17
Teacher laments 'black day for religious freedom'

RORY LEISHMAN, London (Ontario) Free Press

In an indignant response to an outrageous ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court, Chris Kempling of Quesnel, B.C., has declared: "It is a black day for religious freedom in Canada." That's no exaggeration.

Kempling is a high school teacher in Quesnel. He is embroiled in litigation over the decision of British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) to suspend his teaching licence because he expressed his honestly held views on homosexuality in an article and a series of letters to the editor in the Quesnel Cariboo Record.

Kempling appealed the BCCT ruling on the grounds that it violated his rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On Feb. 3, Mr. Justice Ronald Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

Holmes acknowledged in his ruling that Kempling, "has been a BCCT member since 1980, with a long and unblemished teaching career, and a notable record of community service." In fact, despite the controversy with the BCCT, the Ministry of Health appointed Kempling to serve as the voluntary head of the Quesnel Community Health Council.

What, then, could this model citizen and teacher have written in his local newspaper to warrant suspension of his teaching licence?

Holmes explains: "The appellant consistently associated homosexuals with immorality, abnormality, perversion and promiscuity. Examples of such statements include: 'Thus my main concern with giving same-sex couples legal rights in child custody issues is due to the obvious instability and short-term nature of gay relationships. My second concern is how can children develop a concept of normal sexuality, when their prime care-givers have rejected the other gender entirely?' "

On the basis of this and other similar statements, the BCCT convicted Kempling of professional misconduct for making "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals." In his defence, Kempling submitted that only discriminatory actions, not speech, can count as unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the law.

Holmes disagreed. He pointed out that under the rubric of "discriminatory publication," Section 7 (1) of the British Columbia Human Rights Code bans the issuing of any statement that is likely to expose a group or class or persons to contempt because of their sexual orientation.

The BCCT cited no evidence of a "poisoned school environment" or specific complaints against Kempling. Regardless, Holmes concluded: "In my view, the appellant's published writings were harmful to the public school system because of their discriminatory content."

Note the general implications of this finding: Holmes implies that it's a human rights offence for anyone, not just teachers, to lament sexual promiscuity among homosexuals in a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

Yet homosexual promiscuity is a notorious fact.

Consider a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal Jan. 11, 2000, on the findings of a study of 861 young gay and bisexual men in the Vancouver area. The average age of these men was only 25, yet they had already had an average of almost 30 lifetime, male sexual partners.

Such evidence is of no account in a human rights proceeding. In the 1990 Keegstra case, the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that truth is not a defence against a charge of discrimination under a human rights code.

As for Kempling's right to freedom of expression under the charter, that, too, was of no account to Holmes. He stated as his view that the charter does not protect, "the appellant's right to express strictly personally held, discriminatory views with the authority of or in the capacity of a public school teacher/counsellor."

Kempling is a Christian. What about his right under Section 15 of the charter to the equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of religion? Holmes dismissed this argument on the specious ground that all teachers, not just those who are Christians, are required by law not to discriminate against homosexuals.

Kempling plans a further appeal. That's a forlorn hope. Former prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien have stacked the appeal courts with so many dogmatic gay-rights ideologues that it's practically impossible for a Christian in a case like Kempling's to get a fair hearing.

---

quote:

---

Has there ever been a thread to get to 11 pages in less than 48 hours before?

---

Pssh. I started the Hatrack Singles Bar thread one morning, and when I got home from work, there were 12 pages of Rita grinding, Risuena drinking all the tequila, and Mae duct taped to a chair in the corner for some reason.

But then the kids started playing techno, so I shut the place down.

*does math on fingers*

I think it may have been bumped in the last six months, but damned if I'm not too lazy to find it.

----------------------------

Equae, what are you talking about? Article?
 

---

Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
 
Somehow I had managed to forget that thread. Man, Rita was so out of control on it until the underaged posters took it over.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
If I remember correctly, at one point she was pole-dancing.
 

---

Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
 
Who was the lucky guy?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
EL, I think the teacher's union is idiotic if all the teacher did was write articles/a cloumn in a newspaper.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
That's unbelievable.

Why has this not gotten any more press? I guess because it happened outside the US. But does anyone think we're far away from this in the US?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Who was the lucky guy?

---

I think you have the wrong idea of the "pole" involved in "pole" dancing.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I think it was Human, before he turned 18.

Rita needs to learn to check ID.
 

---

Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
 
You wouldn't know pun if i rubbed your head in it, would you?
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I'm surprised I haven't heard of that considering I live in Canuckistan. I'm also completely shocked that this would happen. I mean, we had that whole hubbub about a teacher in TO who worked overseas for a year and wound up getting drunk with some students and having to ask them the next day if they'd had sex because she was too drunk to remember. We let her keep her liscence and we take away this person's?
Makes me wonder if there isn't something more to it.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Belle, actually, I believe that were this to happen in the US, the teacher would be reinstated. As to its imminence, well, our governmental setup allows various communities to make law independent of other communities. Look at all the counties that are "dry", or don't sell liquor on Sundays, or whatever.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bah! Last time I play the straight man for you, Smith.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dag, are you going metrosexual?!?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
 
Now that was an excellent post for this thread.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Only when I have the time to primp...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, I do think we're far away from this in the US. In the US, teachers are allowed to say pretty much what they want, provided it is not in school, and certain basic conditions apply (not likely to endanger children and the like).
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Canuckistan

Do you have to be Canadian to use that term?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Although in some places in the U.S. homosexuals can have their teaching jobs endangered if they come out - even if they never talk about it at school. I'm talking official policy, without even attempting to pretend there's another reason for the dismissal.

My knowledge on this is several years out of date, so I don't know what the status is now.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 


I have no idea, twinky used it once and I've claimed it as my own. For all I know he made it up (yeah, like twink's that creative )

Incidentally, people do know that TO means Toronto, right? As does T-dot.
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
I take offense to part of the article that was published about the teacher that was punished for writing about homosexuals.

quote:

---

Yet homosexual promiscuity is a notorious fact.

Consider a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal Jan. 11, 2000, on the findings of a study of 861 young gay and bisexual men in the Vancouver area. The average age of these men was only 25, yet they had already had an average of almost 30 lifetime, male sexual partners.

---

quote:

---

I was thinking about something pooka said a page earlier, and still can't get my head around it: that the acceptance of homosexual marriage, by blurring sex roles, would make her less of a woman.

---

Tom, I think I can help you out with this one. I went to see my friend Lisa in Orlando, but she and Brendan didn't have a place to put me, so this other mutual friend, Steve, and his life partner put me up in their spare room. I knew Steve already, but had not met Michael. It was a nice bedroom, even if it was full of Steve's Barbie Doll collection (I hate Barbie). Steve and Michael teased me about not bringing Ron, since he's so hot, but it was all in fun.

When I got home the next evening, my uterus fell right out.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
*snorts*
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

KarlEd: Changing the public assessment of homosexuals daily.

Should I print up T-shirts?
---------------------
Can I get a KarlEd is decent people, are you? one?

---

I would prefer: KarlEd is People!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
So by extension, KarlEd is Soylent Green???
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Well, you'd be loved by millions. Or at least known by millions.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Olivet:

That has to be the most unexpected joke I've seen on Hatrack in years. Usually I can smell 'em coming, but that took me completely by surprise.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 


(is slow)
 

---

Posted by Thunder's Core Smith (Member # 6234) on :
 
When I first typed it, it was KarlEd is people! Then I thought about soylent green and decided to reword it. I guess I should have reworded it even more!
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thank you, Noemon.

CT, my joke is near the bottom of page 11. I wondered if it would set off anybody's BS detectors.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Apparently, we're not the only board with this thread....

(Edited by KACard to remove the link. Don't care if you refer to it and I'm not deleting the quotes from this site - for now - but I don't have to open a window to other people's garbage in Hatrack. I think you did it with the best intentions, Pat, to show that it could be MUCH worse than here -- but I'm not comfortable with it leaking in.)

[ February 27, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Wow. It always amazes me how much better Hatrack looks in comparison to other boards.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Well, yeah, they're a lot cruder than posters here... but it's an interesting read.

quote:

---

What's most interesting about this is how Card's making the tragic mistake that his characters always make in his own books. The Ender series is largely about the violence caused by the inability to understand the Other - the Buggers in Ender's Game are depicted as That Which Will Bring Ruin To Our Way Of Life. Ender leads a slaughter of them, only to encounter their Queen and learn that the creatures are sentient and the war's predicated on fear of the unknown.

---

quote:

---

No. Really. I've read many of Card's books. The theme of child abuse runs through most of them. And following his main characters leaves me with the impression that many are homosexual. I seriously think this quote is autobiographical.

"The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."

Card is speaking about himself here.

Try this - Reread the entire article, or better yet one of Card's books, such as "The Lost Boys", and imagine it is written by a man who is struggling with the abuse he suffered as a child and his own homosexual yearnings.

Think about it. Card is obviously a very intelligent person. and yet the article is filled with assertions given as fact which are so ridiculous that we can't even believe we're reading them. This is a man who wants to be caught. And wants to be outed. Don't read it as the ranting of a crazy man, but as a cry for help from so deep inside that Card himself doesn't even see it.

I think if you read it again in that light you'll see what i mean.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:06 PM PST on February 26

---

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That, of course, is the flip-side to the "homosexuals must have been molested" drivel. The "homophobes must be secretly self-hating homosexuals" drivel.

Dagonee
Edit: to make both sides equally drivelous.

[ February 27, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
That kid must be a psychologist.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'm going to write Orson Scott Card a letter.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
It's also interesting that OSC has changed the column title to "Civilization Watch". IS that just a one-off title, Geoff, or is this a new permanent title?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I'm hoping it implies increased discussions of the computer games in upcoming articles...
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
It isn't the first one that has been titled civilization watch. I think he started using it when is 'war watch' topics started drifting away from the subject of international politics.
 

---

Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
 
Personally...I wish he wouldn't spend so much time on "War Watch" and/or "Civilization Watch" and instead work on a new "Pastwatch".
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
Actually, that other forum had some pretty interesting opinions. The only difference I see between it and here is the rampant use of obscenities. They don't really seem less informed, just a group of people who are, unlike here, not brought together out of a mutual respect for Card's writing.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*agrees with both Traveller and Argent

AJ

[ February 27, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Okay, I'm finally going to begin posting in this thread. I'm going to do a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of OSC's article, but first I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.

First, let's start out with the essential definition of a bigot. Rather ironically, the term stems from "by God."

quote:

---

big•ot
n.
1. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

---

quote:

---

That kid must be a psychologist.

---

No, that kid must be a bad psychologist.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Lalo, I'm not homosexual so maybe I don't know....but if I *were* homosexual, I think I'd object to being called a fag, even in my own defense.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
unless you're a cigarette in great britian.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Kasie, I disagree. I don't mean the term to disparage homosexuals and didn't use it to describe them -- my use of it was drawing the rather obvious parallel between declaring God's hatred of homosexuality and the traditional God-hates-fags argument -- but rather to illustrate a point that directly contradicts the spirit behind the term. There's no such thing as bad words, only bad intentions; and I like to believe I have few, at least in terms of bigotry.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
Psst, Lalo. Just wondering if you had plans on complying to kacard's request.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I know, Lalo, and I recognize that....but I still think it's in bad taste.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Lalo, so religions cannot call something a sin without being bigoted? My religion says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. I believe that is true. Does that mean I am bigoted against people who are having extra-marital sex? My religion says it is wrong to drink alcohol, smoke, and "do drugs". I believe that God does not want us to do those things. Am I bigoted against those who use those things? Most religions say that something that people do is "wrong" or "sin". Are all those religions bigoted? If God is real (I believe He is) and He has laws that He does not want broken (I believe He does) is He a bigot too? Does that mean that I or God hate any of these people? Heck no! I might hate pedophiles and murderers, I am such a bigot!
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
*wanders into thread. frowns slightly. shrugs. extracts exacto knife and begins to cut windows and doorways into boxes. steps back. sighs. leaves thread.*
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 

quote:

---

....but if I *were* homosexual, I think I'd object to being called a fag, even in my own defense.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
While these definitions essentially make the case for me

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
I'll elaborate further. Bigots are often characterized by their pre-determination of another group, be that group recognized by its socio-economic class, race, sex, or sexuality. Determining that all blacks are criminals, for example, is an obviously bigoted statement -- clearly, not all black people are criminals, and the person declaring thus lacks the experience and/or tolerance to back up his/her unreasonable beliefs. Or so I'd assume; if there are reasons to believe all black people are criminals, I'm open to hearing them, though my personal experience alone disproves the claim's sweeping generalizations.

I hope we can all agree, at least, that making such a pre-determination of any group, be it racial or sexual, is a bigoted act. Is it any less bigoted if you wrap that bigotry in religious context? If I were to claim I believe God believes all blacks are criminals, am I any less a bigot?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
If I put that in religious terms, and declare that my God hates fags (or any euphemism thereof), am I a bigot?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Or if I utilize a common cop-out and declare that God doesn't hate fags, only faggoty actions -- that is, homosexuals who dare love someone they're attracted to -- am I any less a bigot?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
It's rather important to note that since the only distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual is homosexual attraction, declaring that God hates homosexual (faggoty) actions is the equivalent of declaring that God hates homosexuals (fags).

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Claims that homosexuals can avoid a life of sin by never acting on their attraction to the same sex are little more than an attempt to stamp out homosexuals by suppressing homosexuality (or vice versa, if it’s preferable -- both amount to the same bigoted pre-judgment).

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
By pressuring the homosexual into a life of non-offensive celibacy or false heterosexuality -- by removing the homosexual person from his/her love life, even if it means condemning that person to a life of loneliness and/or misery…

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
(especially if the homosexual person suppresses his/her sexual needs to the point of marriage to a heterosexual of the opposite gender, which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children).

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
By stamping out homosexuals’ homosexuality, the homophobe (or anti-homosexual, if it’s a preferable term) can effectively stop hating the target, since the target’s no longer an active or proud homosexual person. Is this not bigotry? Is this active persecution of homosexuals and their loves not active bigotry?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
To reiterate what I’ve said above, by condemning homosexuals and/or homosexuality (which amount to the same identity) without knowing them, their lives, their partners/spouses, or even their identities, am I a bigot?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
If I actively persecute the breeding of black people as I do homosexuals, am I more of a bigot since it’s clearly wrong to judge all black people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of black ancestry – but clearly not wrong to judge all homosexual people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of loving people whose genetalia don’t meet an arbitrary standard?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
It’s stunning how few homophobes/anti-homosexuals are willing to acknowledge that their stances are, in fact, bigoted.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
If actively condemning/persecuting a huge number of the population without ever knowing who they are or what they’ve done to merit unworthiness of equality isn’t bigotry, what is?

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Ever since the civil rights movement for racial minorities went through, the term “bigot” has been (rightly) stigmatized. Association with the label -- even if one agrees with all the requisite definitions of the term -- has negative connotations, which is no doubt the principal reason behind the anxiety of the homophobic/anti-homosexual crowd to avoid such a label. After all, if anti-black people are despicable for their bigotry, why doesn’t that principle extend to the anti-homosexual crowd? It does. Which is, I believe, why so many people are anxious to emphasize their homophobia’s role as a religious tenet rather than an opinion that requires logical justification -- justification which, I might add, nobody here (or anywhere, to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
To end this first segment -- yes, Dagonee, bigotry applies to all intolerance of different groups (be they racial or religious or sexual) inspired by no other reason but hatred of their differences.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Intolerance wrapped in religion is still intolerance -- bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry, with all the negative connotations that go with the term.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
The sooner anti-homosexuals are honest about the requisite prejudice for holding such a position, the sooner this argument will reach a conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
The longer that the anti-homosexual camp continues to insist that its pre-determination of guilt for people it’s never met has nothing to do with bigotry, the longer will people suffer and will Christianity’s reputation be tarnished.

---

And the longer the “pro-homosexual camp” continues to insist that the belief that homosexual actions is a “pre-determination of guilt” the longer will the debate be dominated by name-calling and not rational discourse.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Wow, Dagonee, that was beautiful *brushes away tear*
 

---

Posted by Shardok (Member # 6247) on :
 
As a homosexual myself, I can tell you right now that people who don't agree with my lifestyle do not bother me. I pity them in that they can not be happy for me and keep an open mind about who I am. I knew I liked men from the time I was born. Even in elementary school I used to look at the cute boys in my class. I always wanted to be with them but I knew that it was wrong because I was raised Pentecostal. I fought my homosexuality all of my life. It caused me soooo much stress fighting to be straight when my whole being was crying out for me to be something else. A few years ago I stopped fighting and embraced what I knew was right from the start. I have since been happpier than I could ever have been if I was still fighting to be straight.

*WHEW*

That felt better. If you all have any questions feel free to ask. I have researched most of the questions asked by my friends.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
*pokes head in post* Dagonee, I need to tell you that I love you.

Shardok, welcome to the forum!! I'm really glad you're here and that you feel like you can share a little of your life with us!! Please stick around!

*withdraws respectfully*
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
If you are a new member, then welcome!

 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Hi Shardok, and welcome!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Is it true homosexuals eat babies?

Because we might have something in common after all.


 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
I have never understood why the burden of proof is always on those who are against homosexuality. Sounds arbitrary to me.

"I think homosexuality is wrong."

"WHY?! Bigot!"

How about the reverse?
What exactly makes homosexuality inherently right? What makes it just ok to do in your opinion?
Is it just because that's what homosexuals naturally want and desire? That's a ludicrous argument. Drive in traffic one time and you'll know that natural desires to beat the living shit out of fellow human beings is very common. Does that make it inherently right to do so? Of course not.

The decency, functionality, and neccesity of heterosexuality is attested to by millions of years of evolution and every other species on the planet. Heterosexuality IS inherently right. That is fact. I'm wondering where the logic is for the assumption that homosexuality shares the same luxury.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
It's not that homosexuality is intrinsically right. It's a belief (at least on my part) that human rights are most preserved when we have the least restrictive legislation possible. I believe that, right or wrong, people should not be legally prohibited from doing things that harm nobody.

I'm among those who doesn't have a real problem with you thinking that homosexual actions are sinful. I just don't believe that your opinion on what is sinful should be the basis of our laws.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Heterosexuals provide better (read: quantitatively) nourishment for my insatiable appetitie.

Homosexuals. . . well, it's more difficult for them.

So, in that sense, homosexuality is a direct threat to my existence.


 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm among those who doesn't have a real problem with you thinking that homosexual actions are sinful. I just don't believe that your opinion on what is sinful should be the basis of our laws.

---

quote:

---

As much as I "support our troops", they generally aren't the most educated or forward thinking individuals

---

Almost every officer in the United States Military has a college degree.

West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Reserve Officer's Training Corps, do these institutions not hold up to your lofty standards of 'education'?

And I know of a few Navy SEALs with two degrees apiece who might have a different opinion about your absurd remark.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Well said Dagonee.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Just curious, who said that? I couldn't find it going back about five pages, so I assume it was deleted or edited out.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Very well said, Dagonee. I can't imagine a thoughtful reply that could do anything other than assent to your conclusions. We'll see what Lalo provides instead
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
beverly, Narnia, zgator, dog: Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I think Icarus hit it on the head. If we can't think of a more logical reason for a particular law than "God says it." I'm afraid we shoudn't have a government of laws at all. I think we might as well just appoint a priesthood to judge all things and go the way of the Taliban.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Good to meet ya, Shardok! I think it is a really good thing for me to learn to understand better how those in your shoes feel about things. Not only have I not been blessed to know many who are of homosexual orientation, the ones I have known have not exactly explained much to me.

I guess one question I do have for you is this: do you feel attracted to women at all? Some? None? I am curious to know how that works. I realize that that will be different for each individual though.

Well, here, I will explain a bit. My first "love" (I only put that in quotes because I was a teenager. The feeling was one of the most powerful I have had in my life. At the time, I felt he was my perfect soul-mate.) was with a young man who I much later found out was bisexual. I didn't find out until years after we broke up and we communicated briefly. It seemed that he preferred to be in a relationship with a guy given the choice.

When I found out, I was actually devistated. This was partly because I had had no clue, so I really didn't know this guy I thought I knew so well. Secondly, I began to question my own femininity. I know that is totally irrational, but I was already insecure about feeling feminine. I came to the conclusion that he had always been very attracted to me, as a female, remembering all the times that it was obvious. Even the way I dressed--when I looked more feminine, it seemed to really bring out his masculine feelings in general. Almost like a masculine "aura". (He was somewhat effeminate, and I actually liked that about him.) In his case, I wondered if he chose to pair up with men because of not feeling masculine "enough". At this time I knew even less than I do now about homosexuality.

You know, he always reminded me of Josif in Songmaster even long before I knew he was attracted to men. I just assumed if he was so attracted to me, and other girls, that he could not be. So I have always since wondered about homosexuality vs. bisexuality and wanted to understand it better.

I am in the "I think homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons and don't have a conclusion about gay marriage" camp. Actually, maybe it is not all religious--there are some darn great guys out there that women miss out on because of sexual orientation! That right there is a cryin' shame.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I think Icarus hit it on the head. If we can't think of a more logical reason for a particular law than "God says it." I'm afraid we shoudn't have a government of laws at all. I think we might as well just appoint a priesthood to judge all things and go the way of the Taliban.

---

A bunch of people have said that in this thread. But, as Lalo has clearly shown, this doesn't cover the extent of the issue.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Dang... I have a terrible revelation... this depresses me to no end.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Huh?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Just a change in my feelings for OSC that makes me deeply sad.
 

---

Posted by Chizpurfle (Member # 6255) on :
 
I do not see why it has to be all or nothing. I have met OSC in a couple of book signings and from what I have seen of him, he genuinely appears to be a stand up guy. The only faucet of him that I do not respect is certain aspects of his ideas. Keep in mind, that does not mean particularly, that I do not respect the man.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
You can certainly respect, and even like, someone who holds opposing views on an issue. You might not want to marry them, depending on the issue and its importance to you. But you can be friends, as long as you are willing to find common ground enough to treat each other kindly.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
From what I've had people tell me, OSC is a stand up guy and treats people with kindness, dignity and respect. I'd rather know him by his actions, rather than words. Ironic, I know, considering he's an admirable author. But when I disagree so strongly with words written, looking at the man, and his decency of action with other human beings, puts things in perspective. If we call on others to see them as who they are in how they physically treat others, we can only do the same for them.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

The only faucet of him that I do not respect. . .

---

Pfizer, we need you!


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ditto Mac.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
i can like or even love people who disagree with me...
but some of the things he was saying and how they were said...
the tone of it...
it just makes me wonder
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Maybe it's because of my personal opinions/viewpoints, but his essay seemed very much like his other War Watch (now Civilization Watch?) articles. I can understand people taking offense at any number of them. OSC's fictional writing style and non-fictional writing styles have some pretty strong differences. I totally understand people feeling hurt from this particular essay. I guess I feel like the essays show part of who OSC really is. The fiction does a great job at showing more of him. Maybe OSC has multiple personalities disorder?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Just came in to say I love Dagonee.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Sorry, I stepped out for a moment, and...23 pages later...

Odouls:

quote:

---

The decency, functionality, and neccesity of heterosexuality is attested to by millions of years of evolution and every other species on the planet. Heterosexuality IS inherently right. That is fact. I'm wondering where the logic is for the assumption that homosexuality shares the same luxury.

---

quote:

---

A bunch of people have said that in this thread. But, as Lalo has clearly shown, this doesn't cover the extent of the issue.

---

quote:

---

How'd you like an ammendment banning spandex?

---

Actually, now that you mention it.....
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
I say we skip the small stuff and just ban Richard Simmons.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Ssywak, I am fairly certain you are thinking of the Old Testament, not the New.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
ssywak, I don't have the Bible memorized by any means, so it would really help me out if you quoted book, chapter, and verse when you're referring to things that the Bible says you shouldn't do, so I can quickly go to them.

The only thing I can think of that remotely matches what you're describing is Matthew 9:16, but I know that everyone here knows what a parable is, so I'm sure you didn't mean that one.
 

---

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
 
People who quote particular verses without putting it into the context of the chapter are bearing false witness.

Why don't you read the whole of Acts and Romans (and both Corinthians), if you want to find quite a few laws that aren't applicable today? Paul didn't just say "be excellent to each other" and leave it at that. He left some very specific instructions, and I have seen no church ever follow those instructions to the letter. I see a lot of "well, what he really meant" and "I interpret this as" from people, though. How interesting that people can re-interpret some laws (the ones that affect them), yet be completely literalist about other laws (that don't directly affect them), isn't it? Do we really also have to include OT law?

And as I already pointed out in the other thread—not that I expect you to have read it, Belle—laws that are religiously based like this do not deserve to be imposed on people who are not of that religion. And don't claim to own marriage, because many other cultures have had it as well, and marriage has not belonged to just religion for a very long time.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Party on, dudes.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

2) Yes, Heterosexuality is necessary for the continuation of the species. Have I missed something? Are we at risk of dying out as a species because of homesexuality? I think not. Should we also have a Constitutional amendment banning smoking, or fast food, or vasectomies, or driving without a seatbelt, or playing baseball without a cup?
3) Inherently right? I'm real sorry, but most animals exhibit some level of homosexual activities. Is that indecent? Let's be honest here--watching two male dogs going at it is no more or less indecent than watching male and female dogs going at it. Similarly, I have absolutely no desire to watch my heterosexual neighbors going at it, let alone any homosexual neighbors I might have...why in the world would you care who puts what where? It's really not anyone's business.
Child molestation and any other clearly illegal acts should be appropriately punished, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature.
(For those who know me--please note that I'm not making any priest jokes here, even though it's soooo tempting!)
But U.S. laws do not have to--nor should they--reflect the New Testament Bible code-for-code. Shall we pass a Constitutional ammendment mandating that all prostitutes be stoned to death?
Aren't there also laws outlined in the New Testament banning the mixing of certain fabrics? How'd you like an ammendment banning spandex?

---

quote:

---

What exactly makes homosexuality inherently right? What makes it just ok to do in your opinion?

Is it just because that's what homosexuals naturally want and desire?

---

quote:

---

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

---

quote:

---

22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.

22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

---

No fringes?!? Cher is going straight to HELL!

Sorry, I mis-read that one. Apparently, Cher is to be spared, as is everyone who came of age in the 1970's. However, the rest of us are going straight to HELL!

--Steve

[ March 01, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
ssywak,

If you're going to make scripture-based arguments about what is and what is not a sin to Christians, you need to be more careful in your New/Old Testament distinctions. It makes a huge difference in Christian doctrine.

I'm staying out of the substantive argument for now, but I wanted to clarify that point.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Old Testament laws are old covenant ssywak, they don't apply to me. And John, please again I ask - what is it you take issue with in Paul's writing?

Book, chapter, verse and I'll respond to it. "Paul didn't just say love each other and leave it at that" is not something I can respond to.

Specifics, and I'll answer them, to the best of my ability.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
I'm sorry,

As a Jew, I thought we had a stranglehold on the country's politics and media--not Christians.

My mistake.

So, then--it's a matter of imposing the Christian worldview on American politics, not the Jewish worldview.

Oops.
 

---

Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
 
Ok , so I have a few comments....first I live in Massachusetts (not to be mispronounced as "Massatush*ts") , and went to college in the next town over from Northampton...aka "the City that doesn't need...or want...men!". I am a happy newlywed of 4+months, and I am looking forward to someday in the not too distant future, starting a family of my own. I do , however, have some married friends who much prefer cats to the thought of children, and some who have gone so far as to have a hysterectomy to prevent just that....children! They live contentedly as married people: working, vacationing, and raising their 3 cats. They take pictures of their cats and send them via the internet to family and friends..... so, should they not have been allowed to marry because they do not have the wish to procreate?
Yet, I have some homosexual friends that do wish to marry and live the same lifestyle that some of my heterosexual married friends live...is that so wrong? If they pledge to live their lives together and love and comfort each other "til death do us part", and live their lives as any other married couple (with the exeption of their sexual preference), why should they not have the same benefits?
Is it wrong to want to be covered by your "spouse's" insurance policy, or to share the same last name without going through a court proceeding, or many other benefits that married people have and many times take for granted?
OK so what about children? How many thousands of children are waiting to be adopted in this country alone ? How many children could have a loving and stable family life with a homosexual couple instead of being shipped from foster home to foster home where, they may be physically, emotionally, or sexually abused? I have friends that grew up in that system and they would have done almost anything to get out of it... to have a "normal" home. Then again .. what is normal? Normal is what society deems as acceptable behavior... ...so if society believes that it is acceptable to beat anyone that wears the color pink, that behavior would be normal, but would it be right? So who is to say what behavior is normal? To homosexuals their behavior is normal and therefore, right.....to heterosexuals their behavior is normal and therefore, right.....

The list and the different points of view go on and on. My problem with the whole thing is in Massachusetts...if church and state must remain seperate, then why does the state have anything to say about church weddings and why does the state charge for a marriage license when they are seperate from the church ....or why is a state official able to "sanctify" a civil marriage , or a town clerk the person that signs the marriage license saying the marriage is sanctified? Also if a wedding is a religious tradition and ceremony, why is there a need for a license when the people have consented to the marriage..or their parents have given consent? I was ticked off that I had to pay not only for a marriage license (the money goes directly to the State of Massachusetts... aka "the Big Dig" "the City that doesn't need...or want...men!" ), but also to have 2 seperate blood tests done (while Kwea only had to have 1 becuase he is a male?)! What does any of that have to do with me getting married? Of course I live in western Mass so Boston has no idea that I exist...except if I neglected to pay my taxes. Nothing out here has any effect on Boston , or the government of the state,so my opinion does'nt count any more than would the opinion of a talking horse! Thanks for letting me rant and ramble!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*glares at ssywak*

HUSH! You're not supposed to tell them!
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I also am coming to the conclusion that most of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because they do feel that being gay is inherently wrong, but that it is not PC to say so. So, instead, it's all about the "sanctity of marriage," and "civil unions."

---

quote:

---

So, then--it's a matter of imposing the Christian worldview on American politics, not the Jewish worldview.

---

I don't think either person who corrected your misguided "spandex" argument is advocating imposition of the Christian worldview on American politics. I can't speak for Belle, but she certainly hasn't done so in her responses to you. And I know I'm not.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks, Tom. We probably agree on the idea. It'd be interesting to start a thread defining the exact boundaries of such a legal entity. But I don't have the strength right now.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I am sad for the wonderful men who are "out of circulation" on the dating scene for heterosexuals. So many gals find this awesome, cute, funny, sensitive, respectful guy--then he turns out to be gay.

I guess that is how homosexuals feel all the time about strict heterosexuals.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Dagonee (and Belle, and Odouls),

It's not only about you.

There are a number of ideas circulating on this thread, and we all represent some, but not all of them. Even if you should split us one way or another into Liberal/Conservative, or Religious/Atheist, or whatever, we'd still fall out of the strict "party lines" herre and there.

So when I say that the "Religious Right" is trying to have a strong impact on the current administration it doesn't mean that you said it.
But it's out there, nevertheless.

[ March 01, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
ssywak,

You've been projecting third-party arguments onto other people's posts. Your response with the crack about establishing Christian worldiview not Jewish was aimed either at Belle's or my explanation about your mistaken, sarcastic analogy to spandex.

That post wasn't about religious rules being made into laws. While most of your points are pretty good, a lot of your responses are to arguments not made in this thread, although they purport to be so.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Thread title changes to take out the name of God.

Thread takes days instead of hours to reach the next page of posts.

Coincidence?

I'm not so sure...
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Of COURSE having ADD is an inherent right.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
If it wasn't, half of the kids in my mother's Emotional Support classroom would have been killed at birth.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Dagonee,

How in the world is a United States Constitutional ammendment banning homosexual marriages not about making religious rules into laws?

I would give $5 to the Paypal account of anyone finding stats on this that don't point to at least 80% "Followers of Christ" supporting this nonsense.

On top of that, you'll also find that at least 90% of the supporters believe in God.

Of course it's religious! Please don't try to pretend that it's anything but!

Oh, yeah, and my "misguided" and "mistaken" remark about Spandex...I'm sorry...would I have "won" the argument if I had chosen a fabric-related edict from out of the New Testament? I think you're obsessing over the Spandex.

--Steve
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ssywak,

Do you read posts before responding? Apparantly not, since nothing I said can remotely be taken to support the amendment.

Since it seems necessary to point out again, “I’M OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT.” Did you catch that? I’ll say it again: “I’M OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT.”

Where did I say it wasn’t about religion? Where, where, where?

No one was having an argument with you. I pointed out why your common but tired “Oh, you don’t support all the rules in the bible so you’re a hypocrite” argument wasn’t valid. You’re whole ridiculous post about said nothing about secular law – it was entirely about the Bible. All I did was point out the factual reason why that criticism isn’t valid. And as far as I know, there isn’t a fabric-related edict in the New Testament.

I said nothing to support the amendment. I said nothing to oppose equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals.

You just reinforced my previous statement, which is you’re projecting a lot of baggage onto people’s posts that just isn’t there.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
I've got to stop posting when I'm tired, or stressed (or burnt, or dead).

And if I was half as smart as I think I am, I'd probably stop posting on religion-related threads entirely.

You're (obviously) right, Dagonee--I completely misjudged you, read the wrong things into your posts, and missed your earlier posts where you stated you position pretty clearly.

Mea Culpa.

I crashed through here like a bull in a china shop, spouting nonsense and pissing the wrong people off.

Shutting up now, and getting back to the projects I'm supposed to be working on.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

I also am coming to the conclusion that most of the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because they do feel that being gay is inherently wrong, but that it is not PC to say so. So, instead, it's all about the "sanctity of marriage," and "civil unions."

---

quote:

---

How does gay marriage hurt women? Well, being gay is not simply about being attracted to the same sex. It is also about being repulsed or indifferent to the opposite sex. Or possibly having an impossible ideal of the opposite sex. This does seem to be the case with gay men who worship, say, Ann Baxter.

So I guess we need to discuss my impression that homosexuality is not about who you love, but who you cannot love. Being unable to love a category of people seems problematic to me.

---

o_O

Do you not see how easily this argument can be turned on its head? Many homosexuals I know admit to being at least a little bit bi-, but few heterosexuals do. Virtually every gay man I have ever known has had dozens of female friends; they are hardly "repulsed" by women. If there's a group that is unable to love a category of people, it's not gays--or at least, they don't fit this description any more than heterosexuals do.

[ March 02, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Jeez, even straight women can appreciate the beauty of other women. Sure, most of the time it's jealousy...

That just seems a silly argument. Any human being has the ability to appreciate the beauty in another. Some are just more willing to admit it than others.

I certainly don't feel my womanhood threatened by gay men.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Odouls,

I did say what I felt--and did not hold back re. some "PC" approach to discussions--and look what it got me!

It got me the schmuck award, that's what it got me!

Mr. Head...

Interesting statement. Here's a question:

From a SECULAR point of view (let's keep religion out of it for a page, if we can)...what IS wrong with homosexuality. And then, what is wrong with homosexual marriage?

But if my previous posts are any indication, apparently no one reads--or, at least, responds to--my posts, unless it is to tell me I am wrong (it happens) or too inflamatory (also happens).

So, a list then: what IS wrong with homosexuality?

1) It's icky.
(Well, so is watching your parents doing it. Or, more specifically: you watching your parents, and me watching my parents, etc. Not the other way around...that would be both icky and very, very wrong).
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 

quote:

---

Odouls,

I did say what I felt--and did not hold back re. some "PC" approach to discussions--and look what it got me!

It got me the schmuck award, that's what it got me!

---

quote:

---

I certainly don't feel my womanhood threatened by gay men.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I didn't contend anything. I do happen to contend that mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful does not make one a bigot.

I did ask a question which you still haven?t answered. For the record, that was "Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?" Not, "Does believing that homosexual actions are sinful plus hating homosexuals or believing God hates homosexuals make the person..." I know you equate the one with the other; most of this post will be dedicated to refuting that.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, let's start out with the essential definition of a bigot. Rather ironically, the term stems from "by God."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigot
n.
1. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While these definitions essentially make the case for me, I'll elaborate further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, neither one does. The first clearly doesn't apply to me, since I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals. I also oppose laws making consensual homosexual actions illegal. I oppose discriminating against them in housing or secular employment. So I serve as a counterexample to the contention that all those who believe homosexual actions are sinful are "intolerant of those who differ."

---