New Hampshire is also close to similar legislation, and David Patterson in New York is talking about it as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This is kind of strange. It's like watching dominoes fall. Twenty years of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" and then suddenly, in one spring, bap-bap-bam.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if it happened that fast, but that's more or less what happened with women's suffrage back in the teens. Only then it was like 60 years of saying no, and then *poof* western states lead the way, then the northeast, then the midwest, just like dominoes over the course of a couple years until 1920 when it all culminated. If you go back a couple years ago (was it that long ago?) to when Massachusetts started this rolling stone, it's looking like a similar pattern. I think NH, NY and maybe CT or DE will be next, then it'll jump across the country to the west, and states like OR, WA and CA will join up. Then you might see the midwest budge. Maybe.
The problem with this issue for Republicans (the chief opponents) is that it's a short term win but a long term loss. I just read a poll the other day that cemented what we've said here a lot: The nation is becoming more socially liberal with each successive generation. It's the old and the middle aged people that keep defeating this measure. Well over a majority of people in my generation are okay with same-sex marriage, and they are overwhelmingly okay with civil unions at the very least. This is a short term wedge issue that might help them now, but as the older generation or two die off, they'll push more people away than they pull in, and so long as people keep clamoring for this, it'll never go away. Americans are too plucky when it comes to individual rights to let it just die.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The problem with this issue for Republicans (the chief opponents) is that it's a short term win but a long term loss. I just read a poll the other day that cemented what we've said here a lot: The nation is becoming more socially liberal with each successive generation.
The organizations that sign the checks for the Republican think-tanks are pretty much all heavily invested in these terrible wedge issues which used to be productive voter-draws for Republicans, so — as has been noted — the party is essentially stuck with them, come hell or high water. Their party's financial backing has ensured that, in the eyes of the next generation, "republican" will be synonymous with ass-backwards social crusades that do not resonate with them at all. And they are anchored to them so inflexibly that they are struggling with a present-day situation where, according to Thomas Frank, the conservatives' nightmare of permanent defeat might come true simply if Democrats do the right thing and they have been forced into the counter-strategy of making the effort to demonstrate, by means of egregious misrule, that government is incapable of delivering the most basic services.
Look ten years in the future. Today's twentysomethings are now much more reliable voters, a whole new generation of kiddos who have grown up in a world phenomenally more socially tolerant of homosexuality are now voting, and ten years' worth of the old guard have passed away. By this time, the GOP's defining moral standpoints will have escalated to electorally disastrous liability and they are not in a position to readily adapt to that.
Barring a significant change in the large-scale trends of the nation, you might as well say that the two-party system is officially on hold until the GOP's present-day leaders all die off and can be replaced by people who can expand the big tent, as opposed to shrink-wrapping and homogenizing it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah that's what I meant.
I will say though, that as gay marriage becomes a lost battle for Republicans, and as the bans on gay marriage only exist in southern hold out states (because historically they're the last to adopt any sort of progressive social measure and this is no exception), something else will crop up. Slavery, temperance, women's rights, black rights, abortion, gay marriage.
They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
I would say that this is destined to come down to differing philosophies of government, but at the moment and in the near future, most of the Republican philosophies are out of favor. As your link shows, healthcare is almost lose/lose for Republicans. If they try to obstruct healthcare reform, which it will look like, then the public will turn on them even more. This isn't a subject they can afford to be the party of "no" on, and their plans for goofy tiny tax rebates so people can afford their own plans are only going to prove how out of touch they are with a struggling middle class.
Their best bet is going to be to try and refine the Democratic proposals as much as possible, but their current philosophy is to obstruct the Democrats, say no to everything, and then wait for Democrats to screw up. They can't refine and vote yes on something, or they run the risk of getting painted with it if it fails. It's that kind of thinking that will screw them over.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As a group, people over 65 are the strongest opponents, by a 3to1 margin, and the most likely to vote. Also the most likely die, which won't help their ability to maintain that lopsided vote against gay marriage.
[ May 05, 2009, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just outta curiosity, does DC or Marvel recognise the right of gays to get married? Haven't kept up with comic books much beyond occasionally reading a plot line synopsis after hearing a recommendation from an aficianado; and the even rarer reading after someone-nearly-as-outta-contact lends me a copy along with a glowing review.
[ May 05, 2009, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
Still has to survive 30 days of Congress.
I think they'll probably let it go, but one wonders if the GOP will take the opportunity to harp on a social issue.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Too early in the cycle for more than the comment-because-it's-expected, though GOP surrogates such as RushLimbaugh and PatRobertson will undoubtedly noise it about to attract and arouse their regulars. But a "done deal" will be used by many Republicans next year during the campaign season.
[ May 05, 2009, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Traditionally DC has been much better about homosexuality than Marvel. Remember Northstar of Alpha Flight? His coming out issue he only admitted it after a knock-down fight with an HIV-positive villain, and then the comic closed with Northstar in a bar surrounded by Wolverine and Puck, all hoisting huge beers in a terribly manly manner. Most ridiculous, pathetic thing I ever saw...
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Then you might see the midwest budge. Maybe.
Some parts of the midwest might. This part, Kansas, won't. The marriage amendment to our constitution passed by a huge margin, 70-30, IIRC. I noted that most rural counties passed it on an even higher margin, like 90-10. I'm not sure what it will take to overturn this, but my guess is that I will not live to see it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, maybe Illinois. They're the northern midwest, and after the most obvious places in the northeast and west legalize, I see them as the bridge to more conservative areas. I think the midwest as a whole will eventually, and like we've been saying, it might be slower there, but the youth of the midwest are more liberal than their parents, and a lot more so than their grand parents.
I think also, when people see that gay marriage isn't the harbinger of the collapse of western society, a lot of the mainline non-biblical arguments against it will fade away, and acceptance will grow. I think an alternative likely situation will be a surge in civil unions being legalized in the midwest, which are a lot less contentious. They'll be a bridge to full legalization.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Just outta curiosity, does DC or Marvel recognise the right of gays to get married? Haven't kept up with comic books much beyond occasionally reading a plot line synopsis after hearing a recommendation from an aficianado; and the even rarer reading after someone-nearly-as-outta-contact lends me a copy along with a glowing review.
I don't read many comics anymore but the runaways have an engaged SSC...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Traditionally DC has been much better about homosexuality than Marvel. Remember Northstar of Alpha Flight? His coming out issue he only admitted it after a knock-down fight with an HIV-positive villain, and then the comic closed with Northstar in a bar surrounded by Wolverine and Puck, all hoisting huge beers in a terribly manly manner. Most ridiculous, pathetic thing I ever saw...
The only gay DC character who comes to mind is Batwoman, whom I've been incredibly lucky to never read. Are there any others?
...Robin?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was never really into the Batman comics. Didn't Dick end up marrying Barbara Gordon?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Babs and Mister Grayson never got hitched.
DC Comics characters who qualify (at least in most continuities. DC reboots a LOT, and has a TON of alternate reality versions of their characters):
Doctor Mid-Nite I Invisible Kid I Element Lad Light Lass Shrinking Violet Obsidian Donner Blitzen Gear II Icemaiden I Madame Fatale (possibly.) Rainmaker Apollo Midnighter Some of the Amazons on Paradise Island. The Brain and Monsieur Mallah Triumph Hero Cruz Josiah Power Maggie Sawyer Batwoman The Question II Jackie Phantom Jetman Some incarnations of Promethea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that the same-sex couple in Runaways consists of two non-humans. One is a lesbian female; the other is a male shapechanger who wears a female form to please his partner.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
They would still have had to drive north. This legislation will only recognize out-of-state same sex marriages, not allow for same-sex-marriages to become legal within D.C. Essentially they are saying that if someone brings them a marriage certificate from another state, they will recognize it as a legitimate marriage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another trend: Fred Phelps & Co. are over time discovering they need to make shorter commutes to stage their protests.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Wow, somehow I totally missed the news about Maine! I have not been able to locate any definitive sources about Gov. John Baldacci's likely response. Anyone know anything about his position on SSM?
I am hoping Congress refrains from getting involved in DC.
That makes two more states (well, er non-states with DC), so I should say two more places in less than as many months. Woo hoo!
As you said in the IOWA SC thread, Samprimary,..... homomentum Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As far as Maine goes, I've read a few different articles that have a few different opinions on what Baldacci will do. His own Deputy Chief of Staff has said that he'll make up his mind when the measure hits his desk, and that he hasn't decided yet. Others are saying that he's expected to sign it, and that a veto is a long shot. Baldacci himself once opposed gay marriage, but as of April has said that he's keeping an open mind.
From the sound of things, the three hours of debate on the House floor was pretty amazing. Representatives told personal stories of their own experiences and sexuality, there was an impassioned plea from a woman whose daughter is a lesbian but still voted against the measure because of her personal beliefs and how much anguish this caused her. That must have been a rather amazing three hours in general, I'd love to see a transcript or recording.
The House rejected a measure that would have put it to the people for a popular referendum on the issue. The bill itself will amend state law, and will recognize marriage as the union of any two people, while recognizing the right of the churches to marry whomever they want within their own faith, and also recognizes out of state marriages.
But, as there is always a but it seems with this issue, opponents of gay marriage are already assembling the necessary 55,000 signatures necessary to take the issue to the people in what is called a "people's veto." If and when they get the 55,0000 signatures necessary, there will be a statewide vote held to either uphold or veto the proposed law, regardless of what state congress or the governor do, as I don't there is an override in this matter.
So we'll see how Maine shakes out!
As for New Hampshire, a vote will be held at 1pm later today in the New Hampshire house. Apparently the state senate already voted the measure in, which I believe would send it to the governor's desk next....yeah I just did some more reading, and it was already passed in both houses once, but the versions are different and the vote later today will be on a reconciled version. Gov. Lynch, like Gov. Baldacci, campaigned as an anti-gay marriage Democrat. Lynch as recently as last week reiterated his position against gay marriage, saying that he believes the civil union laws already in place are good enough, but he stopped short of saying he'd veto.
Interestingly, the NH bill wouldn't exactly be 100% equal. The age of consent for gay couples would be 18, while for heterosexual couples would be 13 for girls and 14 for boys. Make of that what you will.
Keep in mind that in Vermont, the legislature had to override a gubernatorial veto, and I'm not sure NH and ME can muster the legislative muscle to do the same.
Elsewhere there appears to be a lot of activity on this front. Rhode Island's governor has is actively opposing gay marriage and pledges a veto, while Corzine in New Jersey has openly asked the NJ state legislature to send him a gay marriage bill so he can sign it into law, though it is questionable if such a bill will arise with so many members of the legislature up for reelection in November and the GOP already pledging to make an issue out of it.
Elsewhere, in Minnesota, Gov. Pawlenty has already pledged to veto a measure granting end of life decision making power to same sex couples, calling it a backdoor to gay marriage legalization.
In Washington, the so called "everything but marriage" bill is moving through the legislature, and is expected to be law before the end of the year. It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
There's other stuff out there no doubt, but I didn't take the time to check EVERY state. A lot of gay rights groups are talking about a Gay Marriage Corridor from Maine to Delaware, and signs point to the possibility, since New York is talking about it actively, and well funded groups are pushing in Maryland and Rhode Island, but I still think that's a couple years away. For how liberal New England is, they seem to elect a lot of socially conservative governors that stand in the way of these measures through the legislative process.
I'll update if I see anything else, but I suspect most of you will read major headlines and report them before I do.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"For how liberal New England is, they seem to elect a lot of socially conservative governors that stand in the way of these measures through the legislative process. "
Never forget New England's roots They explain a lot. We're naturally suspicious people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Baldacci signed. Maine is in. It will likely be up for referendum though. We'll see if it survives the voters.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
quote:They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that. I will voice my opinion that the institution of marriage is:
Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
And 60 years ago, so would the the issue of interracial marriage have been.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
See, I don't think that follows. I think that states which do what Washington is doing will be among the last to allow it to be called marriage. The average voter simply won't see the importance of a word.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
So you're equating an adult homosexual American citizen to an animal? That's a nice little peek into your thought process.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children.
Your first sentence doesn't imply your second.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle:
quote:They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that. I will voice my opinion that the institution of marriage is:
Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
Seriously. Must we repeat this for every new anti SSM marriage poster to come along? Are you incapable of reading other threads?
Sigh.
No children or horses because consent, consent, consent, consent, consent...
The state does not require heterosexual couples to have children, intend to have children, or be capable of having children in order to marry them. Also, some SSM do raise and even produce children - albeit with some help, but OSM couples sometimes need help as well.
Honestly, one would think that these arguments would occur to you.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
quote:I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that.
Apparently I was wrong.
No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I think it's very exiting, what's happening now. Even if it's a slow process it makes me feel proud of our country to see the states gradually allowing SSM.
I heard of this solution just recently, and imagine it's probably been mentioned before, but it made 100% sense to me: have the government no longer endorse marriage, but only civil unions. Have the civil unions be homosexual or heterosexual, it doesn't matter and it gives both couples equal legal rights. Transfer the title of marriage to be distributed by individual churches, and let them decide what qualifies for marriage. So a same-sex couple could get a civil union, have all the rights that they deserve, and then if their church allows it, they can then get married. If a church doesn't condone same-sex marriage, there is nothing forcing them to endorse marriage of a same-sex couple. What is wrong with that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children.
This definition is flawed. Would you assert that there is no benefit to a childless marriage? Should the state not permit a sterile individual to enter into marriage?
quote:I heard of this solution just recently, and imagine it's probably been mentioned before, but it made 100% sense to me: have the government no longer endorse marriage, but only civil unions.
I've been advocating this almost stridently for seven years.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
The only thing that the one group has in common with the other is the fact that they are both minorities.
Your same argument could be used to say "will we take up the crusade to treat murders exactly like homosexuals and heterosexuals? After all, murderers are just another minority."
It's fundamentally different. Homosexual marriage involves two adult citizens. Until the day comes that we grant a horse citizenship, your argument is laughable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
TWW, the only thing wrong as far as I am concerned is that there is no good reasons to limit the blessings of marriage to those that are "churched."
The other problem is that, despite the popularity of that solution on the internet, I doubt that very many straight couples would go along with having their marriages be anything but marriages.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
To the state? No, there is no benefit to a childless marriage. Being married places people in a more advantageous position as far as taxes go. Meaning that one married couple pays less to their government than two single people.
I can think of no reason whatsoever that being married without children benefits the state. Even if you say you are saving money on schools and everything. There is a reason that the state sponsors school and that is because it is in the best interests of the state to have an educated rising generation.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
But straight couples will still get marriages. For them, nothing will change, besides the fact that they also would have civil unions.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Philosofickle, what about a same-sex couple that adopts a child currently supported by the state? How does that NOT benefit the state?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Philosofickle, even if your imagination does not stretch far enough to see the benefits to the state of childless couples are you suggesting that couples who can't or won't have children should be barred from marriage?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And I would start the First Atheist Church of San Jose and bless the civil union of anyone who asked (gay, or straight) as a Marriage. Over the Internet. For Five Bucks.
Sounds like a Win for me!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle:
quote:I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that.
Apparently I was wrong.
No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
This is a topic that comes up very often and most of the regulars have hashed it out so often that they have simply run out of patience. I think they forget that in nationwide debates, it often becomes necessary to repeat oneself again, and again, and again. Every once in a while, someone will even come up with a new argument. You have not done this so far.
Protecting minority groups is a hugely important function of government. For a society to be free, the majority cannot simply have its way with the minority. Of course, to a certain extent, this is going to happen. There's no way around it. But freedom is an ideal we strive for and so we protect the rights of minority groups.
It's not marriage itself that is the right. It is the right to equal access and equal protection under the law. Right now, if God forbid my husband were in a car accident and in intensive care, I have the right to see him. If he became disabled and cannot work, he could be added to my group health insurance plan. If he died, even without a will (which we have because it's smart, especially when you have kids), I would get his things and, of course, the kids, without a problem.
Whether or not the law should get involved in any of those things at all is a potential matter for debate. But the fact is it does. Marriage brings with it a certain set of legal protections for the unit we call family.
Frankly, I'd just as soon the government stop handing out marriage licenses to anyone. They can leave that up to the church and for any rights they want to bestow upon a family, allow freely entered civil unions.
That's not likely to happen, so if they're going to continue handing out marriage licenses to couples like me and my husband, then I would have them hand out the same licenses to any consenting adult couple.
In a free country, we don't need a reason to make things legal. We need a reason to make them illegal.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Yes, just like black people are a minority group. Or Native Americans. Or Hispanics. And yes, there is indeed a crusade to have them treated the same as the majority group. Glad you see it our way!
quote:People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
You completely missed kmbboots' point.
Let me put it this way:
In straight sex, gay sex, OR bestiality, there are two partners involved (let's ignore multiple partner sex for the time being).
In the first two situations, it is possible for both partners to give their consent to the sexual act.
In the third situation, only one of the partners is capable of giving consent. The animal cannot - it's not a sentient being. Therefore, it is not mutually consensual.
quote:But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies. [/QB]
I don't see a single post in this thread that falls under any of those categories. Feel free to quote posts that you think constitute strawmen, ad hominem, or "ridicule (sic) fallacies."
Also: can I compliment you on the brilliant use of the slippery slope fallacy in your own posts?
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I haven't done much research into the psychology of being raised by a same-sex couple. If said child were more likely to be homosexual (depending on the percentages) then the state may just be perpetuating system that is of no benefit to itself.
If the research showed that children raised by a same-sex couple were not predisposed to one orientation over another then having a child raised in that environment would be beneficial to the state. In which case the solution that you proposed (White Whale) would probably be the wisest course of action to take.
I'll admit my ignorance and make it plain that I haven't done the research on the affects of gowing up in a same-sex household on children.
I will also make it plain that I don't automatically think that the idea of same-sex couples raising adopted children as wrong. If they are raised in a loving and caring environment that can provide more for them than a foster home, then all the better.
However I do wonder about the affects on a girl being raised by a man-man coupling and vice versa.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Philosofickle,
quote:At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Slippery slope fallacy, Philosofickle. This 'argument' of yours has no merit. You need to do better if you want to legitimately oppose SSM.
quote:Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Case in point, two-hundred years ago, black people voting would've been a major 'ick' factor too. Hell, one hundred years ago white women voting would've been as well. That's just one reason why your opening argument is bunk.
quote:Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
Rights aren't rights under the law until, well, the law says they are. So it's a strange argument you're making here as well: we shouldn't make it a matter of civil rights because it's not a matter of civil rights. It can be if we say it is. Why shouldn't we?
quote:# Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
Actually, voting isn't free either. You need identification to vote, which costs money. In fact, by the time you're middle-aged the ability to vote 'costs' quite a lot more than marriage-multiple renewals, even if you live in the same place the entire time.
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
As others have said, we don't disallow marriage of heterosexual couples who never intend or even biologically cannot produce offspring. If I decide to marry a woman and during the ceremony we both swore before God and humanity we would never, ever have children, no one would stop us from getting married. Or at least no one would have the legal authority to do so.
So whatever your 'inner philosophy major' says (not that you've actually advanced an argument on philosophical grounds, you've just alluded to one), this 'argument' of yours holds no water either.
In the post I'm quoting from, you haven't made even one logical argument against legalizing homosexual marriage in the United States. Maybe you should switch majors:)
quote: No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Loaded language, first of all. 'Crusade' indeed. 'Movement' is more appropriate. As for your commentary on the rate of change...this is America. Change is what we do here. It's what we were, literally, founded on. Sweeping, unheard of, frightening change.
quote:People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
You're welcome to advance an argument in favor of legalizing bestiality which uses the same rationale as legalizing same sex marriage at your leisure, Philosofickle. 'But you let gays do it!' is not an argument.
Do you actually have an argument?
quote:But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
So far your arguments themselves have been straw men, worthy of scorn and ridicule.
quote:To the state? No, there is no benefit to a childless marriage. Being married places people in a more advantageous position as far as taxes go. Meaning that one married couple pays less to their government than two single people.
Certainly there is. Marriage is partially intended to promote stability and happiness, and enables two individuals to pool resources in ways they couldn't if they weren't married. Every single one of these factors - stability, happiness, conserving resources - is of direct or indirect benefit to the state.
Stable people are less likely to engage in risky behavior, which the government may have to address at some point. Happy people are more productive, benefiting the economy as well as drawing less on government resources. Conservation of resources means less 'upkeep' for infrastructure the government must maintain, in terms of roads, emergency services, etc.
quote:
I can think of no reason whatsoever that being married without children benefits the state. Even if you say you are saving money on schools and everything. There is a reason that the state sponsors school and that is because it is in the best interests of the state to have an educated rising generation.
I've just given you several reasons why childless marriage benefits the state, and it took me the time I was typing the previous paragraph to think of them. So far the only real argument you've posed was very, very easily answered.
And, of course, here's another thing to consider: this is the United States. We're not supposed to let our government allow things only if it benefits itself.
Do you have any real arguments against legalizing same sex marriage, or are you just agitating?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And now you seem to be holding same-sex couples to a higher standard than heterosexual couples. I don't have citations but there are dozens of ways in which heterosexual parents raise children that is not "a loving and caring environment." If your main concern is that a same-sex couple will raise disproportionate homosexual children, and if the evidence points to that conclusion, then I can see where you're coming from. But I don't think the evidence points to that conclusion by any means.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Look even if children raised by SSC's were more likely to become gay it would be a net benefit as a self correcting population control measure.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Philo, do you mind if I jump into the critique of your arguments?
See, I am a happily married man, who looks forward to a long and loving relationship with my wife of 20 years.
We cannot have children.
When I hear arguments made in all seriousness that, "Marriage is for the sole purpose of having children." I fear that if such arguments stick, I'll be forced to divorce my wife and find someone to have children with, or vice versa. I do not want that.
You say that there is nothing of value to the state of my marriage, since it has not produced more excess population.
Here are a few ways I think we've been helpful.
1) The monogamy that is enshrined in our marriage has stopped us from sleeping around and possibly catching and transmitting diseases that are expensive for the government to cure.
2) Together we have been able to afford a home, and pay all appropriate taxes on that home, that we could not have been able to do as two separate individuals.
3) My job provides no medical insurance. My wife's does provide coverage for her husband. As such I do not have to reach into Medicare or other government help to combat all my aches, pains, and illnesses.
4) Since I can afford to get medical attention, I do not hesitate as much, which helps stop the spread of communicable diseases, which is a big help to the government.
5)By combining our resources and incomes, my wife and I have built up each others credit, so we are less likely to become dependent on state handouts. In fact, together we are more successful, so pay more in taxes.
I can go on, but I just realized, your whole argument has one major flaw. You assume that the purpose of the state is to increase the state. That is fascist or communist thinking.
Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a side note, I don't have any trouble with bestiality being made legal, on the grounds that I don't give a damn what happens to a horse. But it seems to me that even if marrying a horse were made legal, there would be some issues with the oath:
"Do you, John, take this horse, Dobbie, to be your lawfully married partner, to have and to etc?"
"I do".
"Do you, Dobbie, take this man, John, to be your lawfully married partner, to have and to etc?"
"Neeeeiiiiighh!"
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Oh, and if we are closing down bad logic arguments, let me see if I have this one right:
Gay parents may have children who are more likely to be Gay.
If they are more likely to be straight, that's not a flaw.
However, if they are more likely to be Gay, then they are producing flawed kids.
Gay kids are flawed, in the eyes of the state, because when they grow up they will produce Gay kids.
So since they may produce Gay kids, Gay couples should not be allowed to have/raise kids.
Circular Argument anyone?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And of course many same-sex couples have biological children of their own, either their own from previous heterosexual relationships, sperm donation or by surrogate parents.
Of course the state has an interest in encouraging committed couples to marry. As Rakeesh said, stability, pooled resources, and increased responsibility are all worthwhile results. The inclusion of homosexuals into a social framework may encourage more commitment and less promiscuity among the gay community. And the Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide suggested that suicide rates are highest for gay, lesbian, and transgendered teens. The existence of a valid social framework, and the (hopefully) increasing acceptance of homosexuality may help lessen that rate.
Personally, I see this as potentially a strong aid to marriage itself, as many heterosexuals have been treating marriage rather casually for quite some time now. Divorce rate is, what, 50%? And here we have a class of people who see the institution of marriage as being so important, so necessary for a lasting relationship, that they are willing to undergo ridicule and abuse to achieve it for themselves. The idea that two gay men who have been together for 20 years have less of a valid relationship than Britney Spears' famous 55-hour marriage is a sad one indeed.
I would like to see marriage once again considered to be the joining of two people for life, and it matters little to me what the genders of those people are.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Eugenics people, think of the eugenics!
Arguably KoM you could ethically argue against Beastiality under the grounds of animal (accidentely wrote that as "anime") cruelty.
However between two consenting and sentient human adults the same argument can not be made.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
While I agree with the general thrust of Darth_Mauve's post, I think this part is so horribly wrong that I have to object. The purpose of the state is to prevent harm; not to help.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The purpose of the state is to prevent harm; not to help. "
The Constitution disagrees with you, rather explicitly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Arguably KoM you could ethically argue against bestiality under the grounds of animal (accidentely wrote that as "anime") cruelty.
Yes, someone who cared about animals might do that. I explicitly explained that I do not give a damn what happens to a horse.
As an aside, it's 'bestiality', from the adjective, 'bestial'. Not from 'beast', although the root is presumably the same.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
In neither case is the purpose of the state to do what is good for the state.
Nor should people give up their happiness for the good of the state.
Someone made an argument that Homosexuality to the right is what Communism was 30 years ago--a rallying point. It was the devil we could all get behind and destroy. It was the threat so scary that true and good folks would obey their leaders blindly to be saved from it.
It is/was the devil that only with Christ-like striving could it be defeated.
Communism was defeated.
Faced with Homosexuality defeating them, they claim that for the good of the state---the happiness of a few must be denied. This is the same message that goes out daily on North Korean radio, that went out in each issue of Pravda.
To defend us from the new threat, they are becoming the old threat.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think there's a bit of nuance to be had here. There is a difference between being denied a marriage license, and being systematically starved in a gulag. Do try not to go totally overboard on the rhetoric, eh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
While I agree with the general thrust of Darth_Mauve's post, I think this part is so horribly wrong that I have to object. The purpose of the state is to prevent harm; not to help.
This ain't even a matter of opinion, it's just straight-up incorrect. :/
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: As you said in the IOWA SC thread, Samprimary,..... homomentum
haha yesssss
HOMOMENTUM
Really this is all gaining speed really fast.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This ain't even a matter of opinion, it's just straight-up incorrect. :/
No kidding. Both Lisa and Darth Mauve's absolute statements are equally incorrect.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
KoM, I'm not comparing SSM-denial with Gulag. I'm attacking the argument that the state's purpose is to do what's good for the state.
The state's purpose is not to do what's good for the state, or to prevent harm from occuring to the state.
Its purpose is to do what's good, or prevent harm from or for the people.
It is supposed to serve the people, not the people serve the state.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"The state" is an organisation that exists in the minds of human beings; its purpose is, in effect, whatever those humans say it is. I suggest you qualify your statements a bit, so they no longer refer to some non-existent Platonic ideal of The State, but the actual organisations that we deal with in the real world.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
As for a man marrying a horse, it's already happened was was perfectly legal.
What a hateful thing to say. Ugh.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm sure she'll be crying into her feedbag tonight that an unimportant nobody made fun of her on a webforum while she has to go home and snuggle Matthew Broderick. Her life must be hell.
I understand she and Matthew are having twins by Surrogate as well. I guess she didn't want to ruin her body by foaling.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm sad that in your world nasty, personal insults based on a person's looks are okay.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Usually I make fun of myself, but I look like an old crone, not a horse, so the joke wouldn't work.
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, no sense of humor. That is definitely my problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Apart from the unkindness of the joke, I must say I don't see the supposed resemblance to a horse. Which makes it fall kind of flat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: As for a man marrying a horse, it's already happened was was perfectly legal.
Hi, I came out of lurkerdom to ask this question (and voice some opinions), and will probably return afterward, but why are conservatives in favor of banning gay marriage?
As a conservative, this bugs me, because both opponents and proponents of gay marriage are seeking for the same amount of government regulation and intervention in the form of constitutional amendments.
I am in favor of the government butting out and leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the cultural institutions. If the government wants to give tax incentives to people who form partnerships, then civil unions are the answer and should be available to anyone, even beyond homosexual couples.
For instance, if two single moms wanted to combine their households, they could get a civil union. Such an arrangement would be good for "the state" because reducing two households to one reduces things like carbon emissions and sprawl. Housepooling right along with carpooling.
The only reason I can see for gay marriage to be a partisan issue is that the republican party has moved so far away from small government that they have to make non-issues into hot topics because otherwise no-one would vote for them.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: As for a man marrying a horse, it's already happened was was perfectly legal.
I thought it was funny.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
Well, your 'joke' was effectively: this lady is really, really, really ugly.
Yeah, Pix, you're gonna catch some flak for that, because it's just a nasty thing to say - even if the subject of the insult probably wouldn't give a sh@#, and that's even if she ever heard about it, which is of course extremely unlikely.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Good point, Jamio. I concur with your idea of expanding civil unions beyond the basis of romantic connections.
However I wonder how boundary conditions would be set for establishing such civil unions. As a case in point, I refer back to a situation I posed in a thread discussing Proposition 8 in CA. I believe the idea posed by the situation can easily be generalized to a multitude of cases.
Suppose I have just started university and live in housing with roommates. To gain eligibility for higher Pell grants and for other tax benefits I establish a non-romantic civil union with a roommate.
Should such a situation be sanctioned? I honestly have no strong opinion one way or another here. I don't know what conditions would be requisite for civil unions. The purpose of the example is to illustrate that some kinds of conditions may be required.
**Post edited** Change in bold (from definite to indefinite).
[ May 06, 2009, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i thought the joke was we expected it to be a legitimate news story but only found a normal human couple with the implication that she is ugly, its the betraying of our naive expectations thats funny.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Anthonie- what is to stop two roomies of opposite sex from doing that now?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Nothing is, Scholarette, nothing at all! Good point. Sure enough, opposite gender roommates can now. And, maybe they should?! Tax breaks and financial benefits are there for the taking provided requirements are satisfied. Thinking about it in that light, I am surprised that opposite gender roommates don't do it much more often than they do.
As I said, I don't have any firm stand or opinion on the particular situation. I am just trying to posit circumstances where society may want to "define the line" about how/when civil unions apply, other than the current inferred basis of romantic partnership.
Perhaps there don't need to be any lines other than the approval of the mutual parties involved in a civil union?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
See, I don't think that follows. I think that states which do what Washington is doing will be among the last to allow it to be called marriage. The average voter simply won't see the importance of a word.
Yeah but, that isn't the case at the moment. Right now, a lot of people DO have a problem with the word, which is why it isn't an out and out gay marriage bill. If it wasn't important, there wouldn't be a necessity to specifically exclude the word.
But when it is acceptable, there will certainly be people there to agitate for change, and if it really isn't a problem, then it'll go through. I don't think they'll be the last because no one care so it won't be an issue.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Lyrhawn, I forgot to thank you earlier for your very informative wee-hour-of-the-morning post about the status of SSM debate in so many states. It was very helpful and interesting. Just want to let you know that your time spent researching and consolidating information is appreciated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're welcome, and as an update, New Hampshire's legislature pass their gay marriage bill today as well.
Governor Lynch will have five days from the moment it reaches his desk to veto or sign the bill, or it becomes law without his signature.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Shock horror! Treating a minority group as human beings with the same rights as normal people, good white protestants that make up the majority of the wor- oh, I mean, wait a second, hang on...
Give us a break. People are people. You're gonna actually start the "majorities deserve less" argument?
Please, think it through.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Usually I make fun of myself, but I look like an old crone, not a horse, so the joke wouldn't work.
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
I dare you to be more inaccurate.
Mocking Blayne for specific behaviors and saying, "She is hideously ugly," are two very different things. Don't get me wrong. It's not as though I think the insult matters. It's not a big deal.
But, "It's not a big deal!" isn't actually a rebuttal to, "That was a bad thing to say." Nor of course is, "They're too SERIOUS!"
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Nothing is, Scholarette, nothing at all! Good point. Sure enough, opposite gender roommates can now.
Isn't that the basic plot of an upcoming Sandra Bullock movie? In fact, "faking" a marriage in order to dupe the government is a staple romance novel formula (I only read the dust jackets, honest).
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Don't worry Pixiest, I found it funny. Unfortunately this forum has SERIOUS people who are SERIOUS. And while they can make fun of people like Blayne Bradley to his face whenever they want, posting a random comment about a celebrity's looks on a forum that the target is never, ever going to see is totally off-limits.
I dare you to be more inaccurate.
Mocking Blayne for specific behaviors and saying, "She is hideously ugly," are two very different things. Don't get me wrong. It's not as though I think the insult matters. It's not a big deal.
But, "It's not a big deal!" isn't actually a rebuttal to, "That was a bad thing to say." Nor of course is, "They're too SERIOUS!"
Don't know how I'm being inaccurate at all.
I quite agree that they are two very different things. Frankly I think the former is far more cruel (though I don't particular care about it either) than the latter.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I just wanted to, in fairness, point out that Pix's joke wasn't just her saying Sarah Jessica Parker is hideously ugly. She was alluding to a pretty common perception of Sarah Jessica Parker having something of a horse face. A quick google search will reveal Pix isn't the only one who thinks this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I will freely admit to thinking that Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse and occasionally making fun of Blayne. I can do this because I am a horrible person.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Humor is subjective. Accept it. Not agreeing that something is funny is not the same thing as being too serious.
I'm one of those who didn't find this one funny and have never found the jokes about Sarah Jessica Parker's looks to be funny. Perhaps it's because I've been the butt of one too many jokes about my looks in the past. You see, when things are subjective, we view them through the skewed perspective of our personalities and personal history.
It doesn't mean I'm too serious. I find many things funny. Just not this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I am a horrible person.
Recognizing that is the first step.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok enough people laughed that I don't feel so bad about the joke anymore. I'm sorry some people were offended, though and my lesson is learned. Next time I think about lightening the mood on a thread with a SJP joke, I'll just say Neigh.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I just wanted to, in fairness, point out that Pix's joke wasn't just her saying Sarah Jessica Parker is hideously ugly. She was alluding to a pretty common perception of Sarah Jessica Parker having something of a horse face. A quick google search will reveal Pix isn't the only one who thinks this.
I wouldn't have found funny a bald assertion that Sarah Parker (btw someone has yet to explain to me why nearly everybody indulges certain celebrities by saying three names instead of the customary two) is really ugly.
I found something sort of funny about the Pixiest post, though, because it really wasn't just "she's ugly, ha ha ha". It had the same element of surprise/subversion that underlies a lot of humor. And of course, as Dan says, there's the tie-in to the popular perception of a "horse face", which isn't automatically ugly*, btw, just a "long" face esp. a long nose. Penelope Cruz has also been said to have a horsey face and she's stunningly beautiful IMO.
Yes, it was mean. No, I don't care (at all) because Sarah bathes in adulation and riches (and Garnier Fructis) and she can tolerate attempts to knock her down a peg from anonymous strangers in obscure corners of the web. Ridicule is always going to be part of the price of celebrity, and I'm fine with that. [Well, let me disclose that I just find her one of the more annoying celebrities, although definitely not down on the rung with the VH1 crew. But I'd still have found the joke funny if it was about Cruz, even though I love her.]
I guess personal appearance is just a thing that some people feel is off limits...(?)
In other news, a man married his dog (the dog's drool actually made the slope more slippery, from what I understand).
*I guess since the joke has already been beat to death and then some like the horse it rode in on, we could just ask Pixiest if she thinks SP is ugly.
Edited for missing "funny"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Certain Celebs are referred to by all 3 names in cases where there are other celebs with the same or similar names.
Presumably there's another, less famous, Sarah Parker out there who got there first.
Anyway, I think SJP is rather pretty, especially back when she was in LA Story.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Anyway, I think SJP is rather pretty, especially back when she was in LA Story."
OK, so for others - is this sufficient evidence that The Pixiest did not intend malice with the joke? Can it be funny if she's not saying SJP is ugly?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: (btw someone has yet to explain to me why nearly everybody indulges certain celebrities by saying three names instead of the customary two)
Usually it's because someone with that name is already in SAG. You can't have the same name as someone in SAG. That's why Michael J. Fox uses the initial: because there was already a Michael Fox. And presumably, there was already a Sarah Parker.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, now I have an explanation. Thanks. Posted by ridenigmadle (Member # 12057) on :
So we all love at least most of the works of OSC and most of us are strongly in favor of SSM.
How do you reconcile your belief in equal rights with support for OSC? Unless the accounts I have read are wrong he is rabidly anti-SSM.
I know we can all separate the two but would you still read OSC if he had views that were personally very objectionable to you? (You pick one for yourself, I do not want to create controversy by giving you some potential examples.)
Just a question. Thanks. My first post. I am interested in your views.
Riden
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, your post seems to me to be quite a loaded question, making me wonder how much it really is 'just a question', but...
I don't vet my entertainment by the entertainers politics, generally. That's my reason. I also don't vet my barber's politics to ensure I'm not supporting someone whose views I object to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
On the forum exists plenty who argue the point vociferously and plenty who disagree with him passionately and a few who have become outright hostile to him in response to his World Watch articles, many of whom have since vanished. But his 'fringe'-iest writings provoked HUGE, spiraling debates that exhaustively covered the large-scale disagreement that Card has inspired — for both his words and his deeds — in the forum community at large.
As for still reading the books, it's just like still looking at a Caravaggio even if you don't like the artist. Still art. If he still makes good books, I'd still read them, still think they're good books, etc.
I mean, unless I knew somehow that proceeds from the books go to anti-SSM causes, in which case I'd just shrug and wait to pick up a copy at a yard sale or sommat.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by ridenigmadle: So we all love at least most of the works of OSC and most of us are strongly in favor of SSM.
How do you reconcile your belief in equal rights with support for OSC? Unless the accounts I have read are wrong he is rabidly anti-SSM.
I know we can all separate the two but would you still read OSC if he had views that were personally very objectionable to you? (You pick one for yourself, I do not want to create controversy by giving you some potential examples.)
Just a question. Thanks. My first post. I am interested in your views.
Riden
Hey Riden, welcome.
I don't personally reconcile my love of OSC's fiction with his political views. They exist in separate mindspace.
While lately I've been seeing OSC's politics reflected in his fiction, he keeps it pretty low key. The hallmark of his Enderverse novels seems to be empathy for all the characters, perhaps except Achilles. Few are truly evil; most have an internal narrative, to which we have access, that shows them to want to accomplish good things, even when they are deluded about what is good or about the negative side effects. This is honestly what makes OSC a good writer. He's done some good work with world building and plotting and heck, he's good at writing clever banter. But none of that compares to his ability to write sympathetic characters.
But the political essay writing seems to deliberately cast aside any effort to understand or empathize with the opposition. He routinely ascribes hate as a motive where it has not been declared by the actors.
I don't know why he does it. Few believe he's writing as a Demosthenes - I certainly don't. But why would this man so skilled at writing characters treat real life people with far less benefit of the doubt? It's a mystery. Some speculate he's pandering to a wingnut audience in Greensboro...maybe so.
I used to go to lengths to try to defend/rationalize the problems with OSC's political writing but he wore me out. I can't justify it any more.
But I think his fiction is valuable, good, and I don't want him to fade into obscurity as long as he keeps producing more of it. I doubt he impacts political reality to a degree that outweighs the value of his real work. So I am a fan of his fiction and I disapprove of his World Watch politics. Can't reconcile it. Probably won't, unless Card recants his harsh and unfair characterization of many good people. (Even better if he reexamines many of the faulty arguments he launches into the effluether in support of his views.)
Posted by ridenigmadle (Member # 12057) on :
Rakeesh, It really is just a question.
Samprimary, thanks for a brief insight into the history of some of the past debates. I looked but did not readily see anything on this topic.
This is just a question. Both yours and Rakeesh's answers are the same and maybe that will be enough justification for me in the end.
Having just found out about OSC's views, I am just trying to come to some decision on if I can still support him. I love most of his work (Magic Street and Empire are two glaring exceptions) and I really do not want to give up reading him. I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books. (I realize that that sounds inflammatory but is not meant to be.)
Thanks to both of you and anyone else who chooses to respond to my question.
Riden.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books.
He writes the occasional good book, and you like reading good books?
If you disagree with his politics so much that you feel guilty sending any money his way, why not make a donation equal to the cost of the book to the LGBT organization of your choice? Or do what some of the people on this forum do, and just borrow it from the library?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ridenigmadle: I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books.
This confuses me. Are you suggesting that if you disagree with someone, you should no longer have anything to do with them? Because if so, you're in for a lonely, boring life.
It's ok to disagree with one another. Normal, even.
Why wouldn't you read OSC's fiction if you like it? I can't think of any other criterion that matters.
In fact, I disagree with OSC's political views and not only do I recommend his fiction books to science fiction and fantasy fans, but I also recommend his books on writing and his writing classes to aspiring young writers. He is not only a talented fiction writer, but an amazing teacher/public speaker. Plus, he's a very nice person who cares deeply for people and especially for his own family.
Behind the words is a genuine human being, flawed like any other. You get the whole thing as package, take it or leave it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ridenigmadle, I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying the art of someone with whom you disagree or even someone who is a lousy person. I still enjoy Wagner, for example.
I admit that after reading Mr. Card's essays, I lost my taste for reading his stories. It wasn't any kind of moral decision. I just didn't enjoy them anymore.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I've read (and own) most of his books and while there is a great deal of entertainment there's also a lot of filler. Though it's worth wading through his lesser efforts to find his moments of brilliance.
Problem is it's hard to keep the fact that he would like to see people like me arrested out of my head...
I really don't know if that's why I don't buy his books anymore or if I just got tired of his writing style.
It *is* tempting to go find ever OSC book in the house, add up the jacket price on all of them and donate that amount to the Human Rights Campaign. That'd be a big donation.
Uh oh... Big Business idea!
Homophobia Offsets! There's millions to be made there!!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I guess I'm better at compartmentalizing. I listen to Wagner, I watch movies with Vanessa Redgrave and Janeane Garafalo and other people I abominate as people. I love the movie Ransom, not to mention the Lethal Weapon movies, even though I probably wouldn't spit on Mel Gibson if I saw him on fire.
Card's views on homosexuality and government meddling in our lives and the rest... well, I won't express fully how I feel about them here, because it'd be churlish, given that he pays for this board. But I don't see why that should keep me from enjoying his fiction. Except maybe things like Empire, which were overly heavy-handed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
I thought Mr. Card said long ago that ID isn't real science, it's creationism with a scientific disguise.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
I thought Mr. Card said long ago that ID isn't real science, it's creationism with a scientific disguise.
Here is the article. He actually denies that ID is the same as creationism:
quote: At the same time, ID is not "Creationism." Creationism was a ludicrous attempt to twist the physical evidence collected by geologists, paleontologists, and biologists, and pretend that it did not contradict the seven-days-of-creation model of Genesis.
Intelligent Design is not trying to prove the Bible. It starts from the premise that the facts on the ground are correct: It took billions of years to get from the creation of our solar system to the present state of life on Earth. The believers in ID do not deny the evidence -- they insist on it.
Unfortunately this is wrong...ID is definitely creationism with a different label. He continues to be wrong:
quote: However, they also see that the specific hypotheses of Darwinism do not fit the evidence. In short, evolution obviously happened, but Darwinism is not a sufficient explanation of how and why it happened.
So far, I am in complete agreement with them. Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain very much of what we see; furthermore, most cutting-edge molecular biologists are keenly aware of the enormous burden that any explanation of evolution must bear at the level of the cell.
I'm pretty sure most cutting edge molecular biologists believe in evolution (Darwinism), unless "cutting edge" is defined specifically to exclude Darwinists, which might be the case here for all I know.
His conclusion seems to be that ID is non-scientific and so is Darwinism. He doesn't believe in teaching ID in schools but he doesn't think Darwinism is good science either. (I'm using the term "Darwinism" because he did, not because I think it's a good label. I would say the theory of evolution.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks for the link/quotes scifibum, I'll take a look at em, it appears I was mistaken.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa: Mel Gibson movies, huh? I think ya gotta pay twice for him. Homophobia offsets AND Antisemitism offsets.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa: Mel Gibson movies, huh? I think ya gotta pay twice for him. Homophobia offsets AND Antisemitism offsets.
Heh. I wasn't even thinking about the homophobia issue. I don't think I've ever heard him express himself on the subject. Not that I have any doubts about what he'd say.
What can I say? I enjoy his manic energy. I never realized it was because he was loopy in real life as well. The last time I read The Stand was after having seen the movie, and all I can say is that casting Jamie Sheridan as Flagg was a big mistake. If you read the descriptions of him in the book, Mel Gibson in his late 20s would have been beyond perfect for the role.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Except maybe things like Empire, which were overly heavy-handed.
But you liked Goodkind's "Naked Empire"? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa: Mel Gibson movies, huh? I think ya gotta pay twice for him. Homophobia offsets AND Antisemitism offsets.
Heh. I wasn't even thinking about the homophobia issue. I don't think I've ever heard him express himself on the subject. Not that I have any doubts about what he'd say.
What can I say? I enjoy his manic energy. I never realized it was because he was loopy in real life as well. The last time I read The Stand was after having seen the movie, and all I can say is that casting Jamie Sheridan as Flagg was a big mistake. If you read the descriptions of him in the book, Mel Gibson in his late 20s would have been beyond perfect for the role.
Yeah, I love his work too. I just wish he wasn't bug-eyed crazy.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)