posted
Ok, now I have finally figured out what I was trying to say. (I'm a little slow, which is why I normally don't enter important discussions) The point I was really trying to make was this: Yes, Orson has created a few sympathetic homosexual/bisexual characters. They were good people and portrayed compassionately but NONE of them had been happy in their homosexuality. Remember, Zorab supressed it to live a "normal" life and have children. Ansset was ruined just by trying and Josef was murdered for it. Orson may have portrayed homosexual people sympathetically, but never the homosexual lifestyle. Does that make anything clearer?
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, it's been a while since I read the Homecoming saga, and even longer since I read Songmaster. But at least in the former, isn't Zorab's unhappiness portrayed as being largely due to social norms?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I said I was done talking about this, but I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth.
quote:You've misunderstood my point about correlation. I was saying that your objection rests on the assumption that there is a correlation between someone being a victim of unreported abuse and being a closeted homosexual, not that closeted homosexuals commit unreported sexual abuse.
Wrong. That was never my objection. Stop saying, suggesting, or hinting that I said such a thing, because I did not. You're deliberately painting me as someone who says that someone who is homosexual is more likely to be a child-rapist, and it's pissing me off.
I said that we cannot know whether or not there is such a correlation because we cannot know a) who has been a victim of unreported child abuse, and b) who is a closeted homosexual. Tell me something, Mr. Squicky, do you think someone who is in the closet and wants to stay that way will agree to submit to a test designed to discern their true sexuality?
Your answer to that question amounts to at best a guess. That is at the heart of my doubts of studies like you're talking about.
As for unacknowledged child-molesters, how do you find them out? I've certainly never heard of a study whose goal is to ferret out uncaptured child molestors, and I've never heard a whiff of a study that even accidentally came up with that result.
Can you give me one such study, please?
And also for the last time, about statistical studies: I took basic statistics, man. I know you don't have to study the whole bloody population. Please stop telling me I'm not understanding that. But really, Mr. Squicky, are you telling me that homosexuals are reliably spread out throughout the entire American population? If so, what do you base that assumption on? How does that explain for places like-I'll use the cliche-San Francisco?
-------------------------
There are arguments against permitting SSM that don't rely on 'God Says So' and prejudices, but you and I just don't think they're sufficient to continue denying SSM. They've been given, many, many times. You just ignore them, each time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'm not talking about child molestors. I didn't mention them at all here and I certainly didn't ever claim that you believed that you believed that homosexauls were child molestors. I don't even see how you came up with that conclusion.
I'm talking about the victims of child molestation. In order for the samples you're talking about to be unrepresentative in the way you're talking about in terms of testing the child abuse leads to homosexuality, there would have to be a correlation between being the victim of unreported child abuse and a strongly closeted homosexual.
If you understood basic statistics and were using that understanding here, I don't think you'd be making an argument that relies on "You don't test everyone, some you can't know for sure." Of course we can't test everyone and of course we can't know for sure. That's why we use statistical sampling. If there were a correlation between being a victim of unreported child abuse and being a strongly closeted homosexual, then these statistical sampling methods would be invalid. Heck, a large amount of error would creep in if either direction of that were true (unreported abuse to homosexual or abuse leading to closeted homosexuals) but these are all testable hypotheses.
---
Also, hey, if I'm ignoring the arguments against gay marriage, could you make them clear to me? I haven't seen them. I've seen a bunch of people telling me they exist, but I haven't actually seen anyone tell me what they are. Maybe I'm just ignoring them, in which case a simple clear list would really show that this is what I'm doing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1.) That there's no need to extend the benefits of civil marriage to nonreproductive couples, and that allowing nonreproductive heterosexual couples to marry is simply a convenience based on the far greater difficulty in determining fertility. The laws in place for dealing with non-married parenthood are sufficient to protect children being raised by gay couples. This argument draws a clear line and also explains why we don't open civil union benefits to siblings or first cousins. Reason I oppose this argument: there are no true costs associated with extending the benefit to same sex couples, so there's no reason to deny them the benefit. Does not rely on either prejudice or "God says so."
2.) Maintaining separate legal institutions allows development of legal doctrine in areas of law inapplicable to same sex couples (such as presumption of paternity). Again, I find the differences easily handled by existing legal doctrine, but the argument doesn't depend on either prejudice or "God says so."
3.) Altering the legal definition of marriage deemphasizes marriage as a reflection of biological reproduction. Dilution of this focus will encourage more changes to the legal institution not in keeping with this core purpose of marriage. I disagree with this one on both historical and predictive grounds.
4.) The laws of a society should reflect the dominant morals of that society. Note the subtle difference between this and "God says so." Although certainly someone using this to justify an anti-civil-gay-marriage position in this country would be relying on "God says so," someone espousing this as a tenet of their philosophy of political science would speak of consistency and heterogenaity as legitimate goals of government. I find this general philosophy fairly repellent, but it has been advocated by many legal scholars. It was in fact advocate in Griswald by the majority opinion which struck down laws banning sale of contraceptives to married couples as recently as the 60s.
5.) The establishment of benefits to identifiable subgroups is legitimate when doing so benefits society at large. Such benefits need not be expanded to groups when doing so will not benefit society at large. Extending benefits to gay couples will not benefit society, so they should not be extended. I agree with the foundational premise, but I think it is incomplete - if the benefit can be extended for no cost, it is better to do so. I also disagree with the minor premise that society does not benefit, even examining only savings to the legal system by extending the savings associated with the default relationships of marriage to gay couples.
I'm sure there are more. I can poke holes in all of them at many different levels. But they exist and should be countered, rather than summarily dismissed.
Further, as much as you dislike it, "because God says so" is enough reason to motivate many voters. And, it is still constitutional to use the power of the state to enforce public morals, within certain restrictions. So convincing people that "because God says homosexual acts are wrong" does not require civil marriage to be denied to gay couples is a necessary argument to be able to make.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the logic of those who oppose gay marriage. As an avid follower of people such as Milton Friedman, I believe it should be within the freedom of man to chose his own actions so long as the actions a person takes do not inflict any significant consequences upon an outside third party (the so called neighborhood effect). I anticipate what the replies to this post will look like - something to the effect that gay marriage somehow is tearing apart our society - but I would like to see this viewpoint argued effectively. I am by no means gay, but see it morally wrong that others would oppose gay marriage (just as I see it as wrong that marijuana be illegal...but that's another issue).
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gilmourman, Mr. Squicky, as Dagonee showed-again, for the nth time now-there are arguments against permitting SSM that are neither based exclusively in religion nor are based on personal distaste for homosexuality.
I don't happen to share any of those arguments, nor do I feel they're more complling than other arguments that support SSM.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1.) That there's no need to extend the benefits of civil marriage to nonreproductive couples, and that allowing nonreproductive heterosexual couples to marry is simply a convenience based on the far greater difficulty in determining fertility. The laws in place for dealing with non-married parenthood are sufficient to protect children being raised by gay couples. This argument draws a clear line and also explains why we don't open civil union benefits to siblings or first cousins. Reason I oppose this argument: there are no true costs associated with extending the benefit to same sex couples, so there's no reason to deny them the benefit. Does not rely on either prejudice or "God says so."
Except that you're mistaken on two counts.
There actually are costs associated with treating us equally. Every dollar of tax money that we save by filing jointly costs the country a dollar. Then again, the additional marriage license fees ought to make up for that.
But it doesn't matter whether there are extra costs or not. The argument that marriage is about reproduction is specious. I do not believe that there is a person alive who actually opposes same-sex marriage for that reason. One might just as well say that marriage is about carrying on a heritage, and that mixing races actually harms that goal, and therefore should not be allowed. It's a silly excuse.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 2.) Maintaining separate legal institutions allows development of legal doctrine in areas of law inapplicable to same sex couples (such as presumption of paternity).
Why on earth should that be a consideration? In California, the registered domestic partner of a woman who gives birth is automatically registered as the child's parent.
And again, it makes as much sense as saying that determining the race of a child becomes difficult if the parents are of different races, and that we should therefore not allow mixed-race marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Again, I find the differences easily handled by existing legal doctrine, but the argument doesn't depend on either prejudice or "God says so."
It does still depend on prejudice. Look, I can make up any spurious argument for anything. That doesn't make it a real reason. No one actually opposes same-sex marriage for any of these reasons. Only someone who is already opposed to same-sex marriage would raise these issues when arguing against it. You're only coming up with them because you're theorizing.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 3.) Altering the legal definition of marriage deemphasizes marriage as a reflection of biological reproduction. Dilution of this focus will encourage more changes to the legal institution not in keeping with this core purpose of marriage. I disagree with this one on both historical and predictive grounds.
My above comments apply here as well. And in fact, this argument makes a fairly good case for polygamy.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 4.) The laws of a society should reflect the dominant morals of that society. Note the subtle difference between this and "God says so."
I don't see one. The dominant morals of this society are dictated by the Constitution. I'm speaking of equality under the law. Anyone who wants to try and trump that moral imperative with a different one is out of line, and is clearly attempting to bring in the morals of some other system.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 5.) The establishment of benefits to identifiable subgroups is legitimate when doing so benefits society at large. Such benefits need not be expanded to groups when doing so will not benefit society at large. Extending benefits to gay couples will not benefit society, so they should not be extended. I agree with the foundational premise,
I do not. What did allowing miscegenation benefit society at large? It benefited those who were now able to marry.
What did allowing women to vote benefit society at large? It benefited women who wanted to vote.
The only relevant "benefit" is that an inequity which exists in our society is eliminated.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I've never denied that these arguments exist in potential. I've just said that I've not seen them. If you accept Dag's list as arguments that have been brought up that I ignored, I'd appreciate you showing me where on this thread they were brought up. Because that is what you accused me of, correct, ignoring the arguments that had been given many, many times?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuals are allowed to marry as long as they can convince a member of the opposite sex to engage in it. Orson Scott Card is a genius.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think he is. This equal protection stuff people keep talking about is ridiculous.
EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET MARRIED TO A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.
EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA WOULD THEN RECEIVE THE SAME BENEFITS THAT MARRIED COUPLES RECEIVE.
There should be no controversy. Gays like their lifestyle and they're entitled to it, but to say you UNFAIRLY don't receive the same benefits is stupid. Again I say, ANY person in America can receive the government "perqs" of marriage, just get married to a person of the opposite sex and they are yours. This is not legislating morality, it doesn't force someone to change their morals or likes and dislikes, it just says "If you want the benefits of being married, GET MARRIED (by the rules that the people of America decide). If one dislikes the method that the government uses to determine who recieves marriage benefits (namely, by giving them to married people) call your Senator and/or vote for measures to change the laws, but don't say that the law is unfair because its just not true.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hey, I'm starting a program: Any people married to the same sex get free healthcare for the rest of their lives.
Now let me see all the heterosexuals rush out and marry the same sex.... no takers? Thought not.
That's a wonderful idea right? Take something that is supposed to mean something special, a vow between 2 people to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives, and make it a lie. Great idea.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that your example law would be a stupid one. But I don't think that it is inherently unfair to anyone. And that's the road that the pro SSM activists take.
I disagree with that sample law, and I would work to change it, but I would not lobby and complain that it is unfair, because its not. It may seem stupid to me and I may hate it, but if it is passed by my representatives I have to live with it. Not to say that I wouldn't try to change it, to sway others to my side, but thats not what the pro-SSM crowd is doing, they are complaining that the law is INHERENTLY bigoted and discriminatory to them. That's just not true, in your example and in the case of marriage today, EVERYONE is held to the same law, if you don't want to do the things necessary to receive the benefits, you don't get to receive the benefits, its just that simple.
An example of a law that actually IS discriminatory and bigoted would be the Jim Crow voting laws and black codes, which unfairly held black Americans to a different standard than there white counterparts. Whites did not let blacks receive the full benefit of their citizenship, the right to have your vote counted and respected.
That is NOT what is happening today. In fact, it is almost the opposite, today we have the law that says "Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the opposite sex, who they are not related to."
If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
SSM activists say "We don't like your law. Change it yourself or we'll get an activist judge to change it for you." This is disrespectful and arrogant. The SSM activists are not allowing their opponents to receive the full benefit of their citizenship, the right to have our vote counted and respected. Instead they want to go around majority rule with their activist judges. And they complain about us being close-minded zealots...
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites and whites from marrying blacks unfair?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Dagonee! Well, why don't those people who want to marry a different race just deal with it? If they don't want to follow the law and marry within their race, then they don't get the benefits. Seems fair. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Edited to say: Sorry for the sarcasm, I just get hot under the collar about this stuff.
posted
I should state that I don't think the analysis of mixed-race marriages is exactly the same as that for same-sex marriages. I used it only as an example of how tricky this "fairness" things is.
I've had two law professors call "fair" the "f-word."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may sound like an idiot, but what does "bump" mean? I've seen it said a few times but I just don't get it yet...
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I may sound like an idiot, but what does "bump" mean? I've seen it said a few times but I just don't get it yet...
When you post to a topic, it moves up on the list of topics. If no one replies to a topic for a while, it slides down the list until it isn't even on the first page. Some people will post something contentless just to move the topic back up again, and saying "bump" tells people that it's being done for that reason.
Now... this guy obviously just wants attention, because he's been asked a valid question, and has ignored it. Yet he bumped the topic anyway.
So I'll ask the question again: Were laws against interracial marriage "unfair" in his ideosyncratic definition, and why?
edit: And no, Treason, you don't sound like an idiot at all. Only the tragically geeky would know that without it being explained somewhere.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Dag said, that example is not the same, it differs from the current law because that law only applied to whites and blacks. It didn't apply to Asians or Latinos or Native Americans, they could marry anyone they wanted. So, no, I don't think that that law was fair, but that doesn't change my opinion on the current marriage setup for the reasons I've listed above.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As Dag said, that example is not the same, it differs from the current law because that law only applied to whites and blacks. It didn't apply to Asians or Latinos or Native Americans, they could marry anyone they wanted.
Had the law only permitted anyone to marry someone of the same race, would it have been fair?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does everyone keep asking me questions instead of addressing what I've said? After 16 pages of debate it seems odd to fizzle out after a different idea has been raised...
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think that a law saying you can only marry someone of your same race would be fair. But thats a straw man and you know it, I don't accept that your example is close enough to the current situation to draw any sort of conclusion from.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it a straw man when I took great pains to state the following?
"I don't think the analysis of mixed-race marriages is exactly the same as that for same-sex marriages. I used it only as an example of how tricky this 'fairness' things is." As to addressing what you said, it was necessary to know your definition of fair in order to respond. The question was a good way at examining the borders of the concept.
quote:No, I don't think that a law saying you can only marry someone of your same race would be fair.
Then please explain the difference between this statement:
quote:That is NOT what is happening today. In fact, it is almost the opposite, today we have the law that says "Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the opposite sex, who they are not related to."
If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
"Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the same race and opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't."
quote:SSM activists say "We don't like your law. Change it yourself or we'll get an activist judge to change it for you." This is disrespectful and arrogant. The SSM activists are not allowing their opponents to receive the full benefit of their citizenship, the right to have our vote counted and respected. Instead they want to go around majority rule with their activist judges. And they complain about us being close-minded zealots...
This is largely irrelevant. Many same sex civil marriage advocates do not want it implemented via judicial mandate. And many opponents are not concerned with whether it's done by judicial mandate; witness the amendments that not only prevented the judiciary from acting on this issue, but the legislature. Further, this argument says nothing about the merits of whether the benefits of civil marriage should be extended to same sex couples or not. So while I happen to agree with the statement, "Judges should not mandate extending the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment," I also agree with the statement, "legislatures ought to extend the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples as an endorsement of the principles informing the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
As for your post, I am glad to hear you say that "Judges should not mandate extending the benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment", as for the second part - I guess I'm just still not convinced, even after 16 pages of posts. Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the same race and opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
And this is not:
quote:Anyone (over 18 or whatever) can marry one member of the opposite sex, who they are not related to. If you do this you get benefits from the gov't. If you do not do this you do not get benefits from the gov't.
I don't think "unfairness" is dispositive. But I can't come up with a definition of unfairness that includes the former and not the latter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I understand your point, and I admire your tact in bringing it up again after I failed to realize its implications previously.
I guess the only thing I would revise about my former posts is that marriage laws as they are currently, are not (IMHO) unfair .
Considering that it is obvious to nearly everyone in America, if not the world, that limiting (by law) the pool of eligible partners for marriage by your race is unfair. I am willing to accept that, but the fact that there are people who disagree puts the definition of fair into question (your post again!).
I think recognizing unfairness is much easier than detecting a truly universally fair system. Actually, I don't think it is really possible to have a perfectly "fair" system. No one will be 100% happy with any law or system of government.
So* now that I've revamped my position, let me say this - the method of government that is the least unfair is a democratic republic, like ours. Since the majority of the country is still in favor of keeping the status quo in marriage, and in fact, making sure through an amendment that it doesn't change, I guess the argument now comes down to what people think is best for the country.
Is that the conclusion that you have reached? If so, most of the talk from others must have seemed like a waste to you, since they were arguing about the unfairness of the law instead of why their position is best for the country (not only measurable statistics, but also considering the moral steps that changing or keeping the law would represent).
Sorry, this has gone on too long, but just know I turned a corner in understanding this, even if I did it slowly, so... thanks.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think certain types of unfairness in law are tolerable under certain circumstances.
I don't think the harm (if any) caused by recognizing civil marriage of same sex couples is sufficient to justify the unfairness.
Dagonee Regarding the morality issue: Civil marriage is no longer a driving force for morality in this country. It has devolved into a collection of rules of property ownership and a means of creating a host of legal relationships (medical guardian) by default. Elaborate rules of guardianship of children exist outside civil marriage.
posted
There are no measurable statistics that are trustworthy about why SSM would be good for the nation, or why it would not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RoyHobbs: Dag, I understand your point, and I admire your tact in bringing it up again after I failed to realize its implications previously.
I guess the only thing I would revise about my former posts is that marriage laws as they are currently, are not (IMHO) unfair .
Considering that it is obvious to nearly everyone in America, if not the world, that limiting (by law) the pool of eligible partners for marriage by your race is unfair. I am willing to accept that, but the fact that there are people who disagree puts the definition of fair into question (your post again!).
<whistles softly> Wow...
You accept that banning interracial marriage is unfair only because lots of people say so?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no measurable statistics that are trustworthy about why SSM would be good for the nation, or why it would not.
What are you using for the basis of this statement? I don't believe that this is an accurate description nor do I believe that you've demonstrated that you have familiarity with this issue at anywhere near the level where making such a statement would be at all responsible.
"It is unprecedented around the country to have a state's highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction," said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley.
To me, that's just weird. Why not just adopt? If I had a baby and a woman was my partner and she wanted to be Mom as well, I would think she would just adopt my baby...Legally I think this will be a mess.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: I hope posting a link to a news article is ok, if not please remove and it won't happen again. I just read this today. I thought I was confused enough about all the definitions and issues--but take a look how confused judges and lawyers are with all the definitions. It makes me wonder how many parents children are legally going to be able to have. Somehow both of them are now legally considered to be the children's mothers. This will be interesting to watch unfold legally. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508230041aug23,1,3231899.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
My partner and I are both legally our daughter's parents. One of us was the birth mother, and the other did a step-parent adoption in California.
All this ruling says is that if our daughter had been born in California, the adoption wouldn't have been necessary, and we'd both have gone on the birth certificate to begin with.
Suppose there's an opposite-sex couple. The father dies, and the mother remarries, and the step-father adopts the children. If the mother and step-father (now legal father) separate or divorce, should he lose parental rights?
This wasn't a case about two women both being the legal parents of a single child. That's already the law in California.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: From the link above:
"It is unprecedented around the country to have a state's highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction," said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley.
To me, that's just weird. Why not just adopt? If I had a baby and a woman was my partner and she wanted to be Mom as well, I would think she would just adopt my baby...Legally I think this will be a mess.
Treason, we had to adopt. We were actually lucky, in that they'd just passed a law making it possible for us to do a step-parent adoption, rather than a second-parent adoption. Both are incredibly invasive. You have to have a social worker come and observe you. Both are expensive, although the step-parent adoption is a lot less expensive.
Let's see... you get to go and have your fingerprints run through a federal database. That's always fun. You get to take time off from work to go to court and have someone who doesn't even know you rule on whether or not your child is really your child.
When I say we were lucky, I mean that we were lucky we didn't have to go through the time and expense and invasiveness of a second-parent adoption. But ultimately, we were already both her parents. All this did was give us a piece of paper saying that the state agrees.
It would have been a great deal more civilized had we been able to get that paper without all of the nonsense.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa- I guess I understand your point of view. (I am adopted, so it seems natural to me in a way it probably does not to everyone) It seems the "original" parents (for lack of a better term) should be considered first. SS or not. But thinking about it, I suppose when you adopt, they recreate the birth certificate anyway to put the adopted parents on there. So my point is moo. (It's like a cow's opinion, it's moo)
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I didn't see it as an attack, either.
As a matter of fact, your question was actually a very perceptive explication of the fact that I have only issued statements on my policy concerning a radical redefinition of marriage without regard for its possible consequences on society, and on my belief that the Mormon Church has a regular procedure for determining what is and is not a sin, and it is not a matter to by whimsically changed in order to comply with the fads of modern society outside the church.
I have also assessed the extremely poor quality of the "science" that claims to have "proven" the genetic inevitability of homosexuality without any serious attempt at gathering evidence or trying to falsify the hypothesis. The outcome of widespread genuine scientific inquiry would be interesting. No one has even tried to do it - the few pathetic attempts are not science, since they're trying to prove, rather than disprove, something, and almost all rely on anecdotal or self-reported evidence.
When real evidence comes up, I will be fascinated to see it. Until then, my speculation can beat your speculation ...
But you see, we live in a time when if you question in any way the dogma of the PC Left, they immediately brand you with all the worst names they have, because the last thing they can tolerate is diversity of thought, since it always leads to uncomfortable questions, and we wouldn't want anybody on the Left to be uncomfortable.
So you will hear from others that I'm a raging homophobe who hates gays and indulges in gay-bashing. But if you examine what I actually say, and how I treat homosexual characters in my fiction, you will discover that (a) I didn't say any such thing in my essays and (b) I don't show any such attitude in my fiction. None of my homosexual characters represent a "position" on homosexuality. They represent themselves, human beings with a wide array of motives and choices, and I present them, as I try to present all my characters, as if they were the heroes of their own story.
The funny thing is that I've been criticized very hotly by conservative Christians (including Mormons) because I'm so PRO-homosexual.
Then again, you should see the hilarious hate mail I just got from an unbelievably self-righteous Mormon who seriously thought I should be excommunicated because I had expressed such warm feelings about John Paul II in my recent essay. It's just mind-numbingly bigoted and smug.
So you see, in the world I live in, I'm such a namby-pamby moderate.
I just could not choose which bit to quote, here. Ok, I'm a newbie, so those of you who love flaming incompetence, please have a go
Mr Card (Orson feels too informal),
I'm new to your books. And it is the quiet homoeroticism in Songmaster that puzzles me.
There is a spoiler below, but I'm guessing that, if people have read this far, then they kind of have the gist
Josif is said to be portrayed positively. Yet he is reviled by everyone except those who love him. And those who love him are somehow the less because they love him. And the poor lad suffers hugely for being seduced by Ansset, and is destroyed.
And some of Ansset is also destroyed because he seduced Josif (though I grant that any orgasm with any perosn at that point would have been quite horrible for the poor child)
Setting this against your statements above, I find that you may portray at time a homoseual character in a positive light at times, but that, from this sample of one book only, it portrays an act of love between two consenting males as having unduly severe consequences.
I was hoping you might comment with that view in mind?
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First post is a response to a thread that's been down almost a year. That's getting right to the point.
I won't answer for OSC, but it looks like his quote that his characters, "represent themselves, human beings with a wide array of motives and choices, and I present them, as I try to present all my characters, as if they were the heroes of their own story." relates directly to your question.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First with great apologies, I did not read the entire thread, though what I did read, I found interesting. One problem I have with the Gay discussion (in society in general) is the general irrational hypocrisy. The discussion switches between the moral and the practical as it suits the needs of the speaker. I'm sure my position will show little difference but I do try to take a very practical approach to the matter.
First, from a purely legal perspective, there is no reason for same sex couples not to have equal rights. Here is where people try to interject religious and moral beliefs that have no place in law.
Don't get me wrong general morality does have a place in general law. But not everything that is illegal has to be immoral, and not everything that is immoral has to be illegal. Beyond the general; morality and legality are separate issues.
The marital couplings of gay people with respect to civil rights is purely a legal issue. They are being denied rights in the same circumstance in which others are being granded special rights.
So here we have the double standard in agruing this issue. There are those who will use morality to agrue law, and those that will use law to argue morality. Neither is effective or productive.
Again, remember that I'm not totally divorcing law and morality. There is a general and universal morality that is constant in all societies and in all religions upon which are legal system is based. But beyond the general and universal, law is law and religion is religion.
So, in my view, from a practical, legal, and civil rights perspective, I can't see, and have never heard, any reasonable argument against extending uniform civil rights. Isn't that at the heart of civil rights, that they are uniform?
So much for the legal aspect, now to the moral aspect.
First, the one critically important factor that most who argue against homosexuality are denying, and I use 'denial' in the most therapeutic sense of the word.
We, or at least society, generally agrees that homosexual sex is immoral; it is a sin. The issue that society very blindly ignores is that hetrosexual sex is also immoral. Depending on the specifics of your religion, only hetrosexual sex inside of marriage and for the purpose of pro-creation is allowed. To some extent, sex is a sacrament of marriage, not a fun little toy that makes your willie go squirt.
Now for a reality check. Whether you admit it or not, a substantial majority of your sons and daughters are out there drinking beer, smoking pot, and having sex. If you condemn gay sex, then you must equally condemn your own sons and daughters for their sins.
The problem is that while many religiously inclined will say they condemn pre-marital sex, it is done with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink. They know that they have to openly condemn it because the people listening will not tolerate any other position, but I suspect that even those listening accept the harsh reality that people do have pre-marital sex. If fact, it is likely the most who condemn it, did it themselves. Just watch TV, and you see it on nearly every program. It is accepted as a societal norm, even while it is quietly condemned with words, but oh so rarely with actions.
So, figuratively, why is your sin so much less a sin than mine? Why is it 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' when it comes to your sins, but hellfire and brimstone when in comes to mine (figuratively)? Why do your sons and daughter openly condemn the sins of others while they themselves commit the same (or similar) sins?
If you condemn homosexual sex, then I feel you are a hypocrit if you do not with equal vigor and effort, actively and publicly condemn hetrosexual sex. Sin is sin, your sins are no better than mine.
Further, if we step for a moment beyond the physical; is love ever a sin?
One final point, we do not condemn hetrosexual sinners as universally and completely immoral. We see that they can sin in one area, but still go on to live good, productive and generally moral lives. The point they tend to forget, is the that same it true of gay people. You may feel they sin in one area of their lives, but that does not make the universally immoral. More importantly, it is very wrong, perhaps even immoral of you, to condemn gay people totally and universally, for one particular aspect of their moral lives. If that were true and valid, most philandering televangelist would have been off the air ages ago, and you and your own sons and daughters would be on the road to hell by now.
Final final note, it is not up to us to condemn or forgive, that is the providence of God. It is up to us to embrace and support our fellow Christian (or fellow members of other religions), gay, straight, or otherwise, and help them on the impossible road to enlightenment.
Just one man's perspective, which admitedly is a very unscientific, though hopefully practical, perspective.
posted
Holy crap, I thought this thread was gone forever ... Can't we even have a full year without freaking out about this?
(Not a comment directly on BlueWizard's post. He seems to be on the more reasonable end of the scale. I'm just still sick of the subject.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very well put BlueWizard. I doubt I could have said it better.
However, I believe one could argue that those who are against gay marriage are equally against drugs, premarital sex, divorce, adultery, etc. But you gotta pick your battles. Just as there are those who protest gay marriage, there are also those who dedicate their lives to, let's say, improving gun control. If you want to get something done you have to dedicate time to it, which means less to for other causes that you may feel equally strongly about.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rollainm: "However, I believe one could argue that those who are against gay marriage are equally against drugs, premarital sex, divorce, adultery, etc. But you gotta pick your battles."
I do see your point, but I also see people picking their battles to condemn other people while conveniently ignoring their own sins and the sins of those close to them. While it doesn't apply to all people, I generally find amoung the most vocal an 'our sin vs their sin' attitude, and for some reason the sins of others are always much worse than their own sins.
Part of my basis for taking this particular stand is the unbearable guilt that is heaped on impressionable young gay people by the hellfire and brimstone crowd. To those young people who are experiencing near suicidal levels of guilt and shame, I would say that your particular sin is no worse than the sins of those amoung your peers or amoung the adults that are condemning you. You, young gay people, don't need to feel any more guilt or shame than the rest of the hetrosexuals in your peer group. When those people become absolutely perfect saints, then you can feel guilty, until then we are all sinners together.
posted
I just want to clarify. Are you saying that being gay, or having gay sex, is a sin, but its ok with you because you and everyone else sin too? If so, I think that this attitude would contribute more to any misplaced guilt or shame, and inderectly support the anti-gay marriage agenda.
I don't think any person should be taught to believe that their innocent and harmless thoughts, desires and emotions are sins or that they will lead to sins.
If thats not what you were saying then, never mind.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oouuu, Vonk, you've worded your question in a very trick way that makes it difficult to answer. I guess what I am saying is that we need to make sure actions are put into perspective.
I guess relative to gay people who are experiencing deep near suicidal shame and guilt, I would simply add the perspective that their thoughts, desires, and actions are no better or worse that those of their peers. Why should straight kids engage in sin, and do so somewhat guilt free, while those same kids heap unbearable guilt and shame on gay people.
It is up to the individual as they travel their own spiritual path to determine the true nature of sin and the guilt that accompanies it. What I object to is sinners heaping guilt on other people while very conviniently ignoring their own guilt and shame.
The amount of guilt and shame that is force on young impressionable gay people is completely out of proportion to the guilt and shame that is heap on other people for similar crimes. Again, it is a plea for a proper and reasonable perspective. OK, maybe the Bible says gay people will burn in hell, but I suspect it also says promiscuous people will burn in hell. So, why are gay people any more guilty than the promiscuous people? I say they are not. And in telling that to gay people, I would simply be trying, not to erase their guilt, but to put in their guilt into the proper perspective relative to the other sin that is occurring all around them.
So, my question is where are the vocal rallies and protest against straight sex; those protests should be going on daily at high school and colleges across the country. Where are the fanatic protests outside divorce court, why isn't the most dishonorable Reverend Phelps protesting and carrying hate signs outside the funerals of straight teens condemning them for Phelps's assumption that they must have sinned sexually.
My protest is directed at the completely disproportionate enthusiasm with which gay people are condemned, yet straight sinners are conviniently ignored.
Specific to the topic of gay people, being gay is not a sin, commiting gay acts is, although that is the religious view, and not necessarly my own. Personally, I don't think pre-marital sex is universally a sin (gay or straight), but at the same time, I do not think it is universally sin free. The sin is in the context. There can be loving emotionally fulfilling one night stands, just as there can be lifelong marriages that are an abomination.
So, my plea is for a reasonable and fair perspective.
Remember the Old Testament says that adulterers should be put to death. That's pretty serious. That should certainly warrant a protest or two outside of divorce court, so why aren't there any? Why are philandering televangelist forgiven instead of put to death? The Bible clearly says they should be unforgiven and stoned, so why don't we? See, it's a matter of perspective. It's a matter of our sins vs their sins. Our sins can be forgive, but the sins of others must be fanaticaly condemned with what I consider a sinful level of vitriol.
I can't give much weight to the protests of the religious right until I see equally vigorous protest in all aspect of sin, and an universal and true saintliness in their own lives. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, they are just spewing a load of self-serving hatefilled crap.
So, can the answer to your question be found in anything I said here?
posted
Had I made BlueWizard's second to last post my response to vonk would have been a bit more blunt.
I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me. Homosexuality is not a sin. Murderers, rapists, and burglars are not sinners. Rather, it is morally and socially wrong to murder, rape, steal, vandalize, etc. I find nothing morally or socially wrong with homosexuality. Like BlueWizard said, it's a matter of perspective.
It IS morally wrong (hypocritical) for someone who believes homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, and divorce are sins to condemn homosexuals while taking part themselves in premarital sex, or adultery, or divorce, or any other act they themselves consider sinful. And then there's that whole "Judge not..." bit, but that's another discussion. BlueWizard is generalizing a specific group of people here (homophobic, hypocritical, politically-driven bigots), not all people against homosexuality.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: .... Murderers, rapists, and burglars are not sinners. Rather, it is morally and socially wrong to murder, rape, steal, vandalize, etc.
Why are these not sinners in your view? I am making the assumption that "morally and socially wrong" is not as great a magnitude of "offence" as "sinning". If that assumption is incorrect I can accept your view after explanation.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by rollainm: I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me.
Read his post. If "sin" basically means a crime against the divine, how can you believe in sin if you don't believe in the divine?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by rollainm: I'm not religious. I guess I'm somewhere between atheism and logical positivism, so the term "sin" doesn't really mean much to me.
Read his post. If "sin" basically means a crime against the divine, how can you believe in sin if you don't believe in the divine?
You can't.
But I would define sin more along the lines of "Doing something you know should not be done."
Whether that actual act is wrong to me is less important than the logical processes that preceded it.
Atheists go to sleep every night without praying, I do not feel that is a sin, why should they be required to do something they know not to do. Christians gets in a heated arguement with an atheist that ends with the them both cussing the other out and storming off. The Christian, and quite possibly the Atheist are both sinning because both know how to hold a civil discussion without insulting the other.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
