quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
I don't think the edit lasted very long? It was just some random guy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way
I've read his addendum where he states why it's ridiculous to still judge him based on those words, and that's fair to say.
Which addendum are you referring to, and when was it written.
And your language is unclear here. Is it fair of him to say that, or of me?
ETA: Ah, I have found it. I had read this before, and had dismissed it as a non-repudiation.
quote:
This essay was published in February of 1990, in the following context: The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
This floats between: "It wasn't my fault, I was doing it for the audience," to "I was right to do it for some reason because it was the law" (how *changing* the law is somehow not compatible with upholding the law is beyond me), to "I would never do the thing that I did," to "What I was calling for was actually not so bad considering the times," to "I don't believe in the things that I was saying should be done," to "I believe in everything I said."
My real problem with this, and it is the same problem I had upon first reading it, is that it does whatever it can to dance around the issue of what is *right* and what is not. It is everything to do with context, and what he really wanted, despite what he may have said, and whom he may have said it to- but it dances softly away from what he thinks is right. It says: "I would never advocate this," but not "it was wrong to have even gotten close to advocating this, even in this context, even then." He can't do that- and that tells me it's because he would rather have his cake and eat it too- not be called a bigot, and still get to own hateful acts.
But I mean, that's what you get for being a really smart and agile minded individual who happens to believe in something embarrassingly stupid. It's almost worse.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
I don't think the edit lasted very long? It was just some random guy.
Indeed! That's cool. When I commented here I hadn't checked the talk pages or anything, I just glanced at the entry to confirm it had been edited. Glad to see it was just some guy, and not an overall consensus among the wiki editors.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics. And it's strange how, now, Card edges more and more towards *not* respecting the law-as it becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, that is. We must, apparently, grudgingly accept the law only enforcing it sometimes when it's on our side of the fence, leaning deeper into our field. But as time passes, and society changes, and it becomes likely that the law will gradually be on the *other* side of the fence, and deeper into *that* field...why, suddenly it's an attack on America, it's the kind of thing that would provoke a violent uprising, it's going to destroy the family, etc.
I look forward to reading, as laws continue to be passed bringing homosexuality nearer and nearer parity with heterosexuality, essays from Card talking about how we need to respect the law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: wiki - I've been monitoring the page, and the anonymous editor seems to be interested in starting a flame-and-edit war over the word. Particularly annoying since they remain anonymous.
I would like to say, though I don't fully agree with how Card formulates and reacts with regards to homosexuality, that I think it's unfair to act as if heteronormative views are mustache-twirlingly evil from the point of view of the heteronormative. I don't think a heteronormative advocate wakes up thinking "I know homosexuality is normal and right and I must fight that out of the perversion of my heart," in the same way that I don't imagine advocates of homosexual rights wake up thinking "I know heteronormativity is the right way to go and I must oppose that in the perversion of my heart." I think assumption of bad faith on the part of either party is not a helpful starting point.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Millernumber1, people don't have to have malicious intent - certainly not deliberate malicious intent - to be wrong and harmful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and anyway, trying to figure out people's intent is a murky sorcery at best. Let's stick to what we know from what they've written.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, actually. Initially, I looked at Card's politics and said to myself, "Well some of the political statements he's made sound pretty bad to me. But I must be reading too much into it, because...(look at his fiction, his homosexual characters and how they behave and are treated)."
As time has passed, though, I've come to think I was seeing what I wished to see on the basis of my love of so many of his stories. I think I was guessing at his motives, and now I look to his explicitly political writing, rather than what I wish his motives were.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are trying to have a useful discussion then yes, I agree, speculating on people's motivations can definitely derail things into a scratch fight. But when you look at people trying to defend their moralities which are bed rock to their lives, I doubt useful discussion is likely. More like, unmovable object + unstoppable force = catastrophic something or other.
That Card and others like him truly believe that homosexuality and SSM are an evil sin which is bad for this country as a whole is undeniable.
That many many same gender couples are happy and good productive members of our society and will (and should) defend their ability to live as they choose in freedom and without being persecuted is also, undeniable.
The difference between these two beliefs is that the latter does not require anything from anyone. You do not like homosexuality, you feel it is a sin, then teach your children that and hate the sin and not the sinner. There are a lot of sins out there that are equally "damning" to society, but are actually harmful, such as substance abuse, domestic abuse, theft, murder, rape, etc, ad nausium. That this particular "sin" doesn't directly harm anyone (spin up the debate on that one) where as the others I listed have direct and real victims leads me to say, pick you battles! I don't expect people who object to SSM on a religious/moral ground to change their minds, but I do expect them to embrace the founding ideal of this country: freedom. We do not live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy and that means some times having to accept that the thing that is not right for you is right for someone else.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously though, sure having to accept that not everything that is for you will still be legal may not be the definition of "democracy", but it sure is part of the reality of living in one.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics.
What did I say about politics? I was talking about whether its fair to judge a person based on something they said decades ago which has been stripped from its social, cultural and textural context. I stand by that assessment which I don't see as either cynical or pragmatic. Its about fairness to a person.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't like Card wrote that article in 1890. 1990 was certainly recent enough to be aware of gay people as human beings. Nor does the audience matter unless he was pandering rather than expressing his own honest views. And he has had ample opportunity to make public any changes of heart or mind he has had since then.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Second, there is a differences between "pandering to an audience" and presenting your arguments in a way that reaches your audience. The audience Card was writing to was extremely anti-gay. The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
Look, I don't approve of most of Card's political opinions or his position on Gay marriage. I'm not trying to defend his work to prevent Gay marriage. But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
You are unlikely to persuade people that they should treat gays fairly and justly, by treating those people unfairly and injustly. You certainly know enough conservative religious people to be aware that they are human beings and that most of them are pretty decent human beings. You are unlikely to reduce the hatred, misunderstanding, and fear people have of gays but returning it with hatred, misunderstanding and fear.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell this statement is not true:
quote:The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell this statement is not true:
quote:The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
Card said
quote:I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay."
My assessment may have been too generous, but from where I'm sitting it is at least reasonable interpretation of what Card actually said. If you have evidence that this is not a reasonable interpretation -- please share.
Out of curiousity, are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable or do you disagree with the point I was trying to make. There are reason for a speaker to tailor a message to a particular audience that don't amount to "pandering". There are reasons a speaker might argue in support of a situation they consider "non-ideal" that don't amount to dissembling. When reading something that was prepared for a specific audience at a specific time, it behooves one to understand how that audience at that time would have perceived the message rather than superimposing ones own perspective on it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What in the quoted paragraph points to the idea that the goal of 'The Hypocrites of Homosexuality' was to make people "less anti-gay?"
quote:are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable or do you disagree with the point I was trying to make.
I question kmboots when I feel she's wrong; I question you when I feel you're wrong. I do the same to TomDavidson, Samprimary, Orincoro, and Stone_Wolf.
And that's just in this thread. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do expect them to embrace the founding ideal of this country: freedom. We do not live in a theocracy
Note that OSC does not use religious arguments to justify his stance against same sex marriage.
His sources and reasons may be mistaken, but they cannot be called "religious."
He doesn't use religious arguments because they wouldn't gain him any traction, not because religious beliefs are not the basis of his ideology. His claims not-withstanding.
In this case, particularly, I will not take him at his word that his views are based on his understanding of sociology and psychology. I simply find that claim unlikely to be true. I think he starts with the assumption taught in his religion, and finds justification for that in some view of science. He can then convince himself, and attempt to convince us, that his views are somehow divorced from his religion. I just don't think it's true.
I think you're going way too far in saying that his reasons "can't" be called religious. They can, and with good reason.
I can't prove that- I can't use it to impeach his arguments. But I don't need to. His arguments are impeachable on their own. I just don't think he gets to say: "my views are not dictated by my religion," and have us just take that for granted. Considering that his views line up rather neatly with his religion, we would be foolish to do so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.
And as I said, I am willing to allow him to have changed his mind. I have just never been convinced by that particular addendum- it is full of self-justification, and little to no detail on what he actually regrets having said. If he regrets nothing he said, then really this addendum is just a clarification that these were statements made of a purpose he still believes in (even if he never believed in the statements themselves, or no longer does).
And the "main point," of the essay is that society should use whatever tools it has to discourage homosexual behavior. Right? When the law was a tool to be used, Card wanted it used. When it stopped being a tool, he was "not interested." When violent uprising and overthrow (or more importantly the invocation of the right to rebellion) became a tool, he wanted that used too.
It's all horribly mercenary, really. He hasn't changed his mind at all- just acknowledged that the fight has changed shape. That isn't changing your views. It's changing your strategy.
Again, it seems people want to let him divorce himself from these statements simply because he *wants to*. Never mind that he refused to actually acknowledge that there is *anything wrong with them in the first place*. Show me where he does that. Show me where he has said that these things he advocated, these words he spoke, were wrong. He doesn't do that, he just disowns them- as if it never happened. As if it is not important that he said them, and that somehow he can't be held responsible for them because they no longer serve a purpose for him. Again, that isn't changing your mind. Actually, he claims that his mind *never* changed- that what he said then was somehow both right, and not what he believed. it simply MAKES NO SENSE.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.
Another strip quote. He states
quote:But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
You are free to dislike him if you please. But if you misrepresent what he has said, expect to be corrected.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't buy it. When a public figure makes statements in the public, they must be aware that "matters internal" to whatever just don't apply. I'm not saying that context doesn't matter, but you can't simply say whatever you want and then come along and say, "Well, that was not for your ears, so disregard it."
I'm with Orincoro (shocker, eh?) that I'd love to hear him say this isn't his stance or beliefs any more, but that isn't what he's saying.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.[/qb][/QUOTE]Another strip quote. He states
quote:But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
You are free to dislike him if you please. But if you misrepresent what he has said, expect to be corrected. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected on that point. However, I am not clear as to whether he means that the main points *are* those about the church, or whether the main points (those that I believe are the main points) are simply *for* the church's digestion.
I still don't believe this addendum is a repudiation of his essay- I think it is a justification.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics. And it's strange how, now, Card edges more and more towards *not* respecting the law-as it becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, that is. We must, apparently, grudgingly accept the law only enforcing it sometimes when it's on our side of the fence, leaning deeper into our field. But as time passes, and society changes, and it becomes likely that the law will gradually be on the *other* side of the fence, and deeper into *that* field...why, suddenly it's an attack on America, it's the kind of thing that would provoke a violent uprising, it's going to destroy the family, etc.
I look forward to reading, as laws continue to be passed bringing homosexuality nearer and nearer parity with heterosexuality, essays from Card talking about how we need to respect the law.
Um...is there really any question whatsoever that the changes in society have eroded the traditional family?
I'll go ahead and answer that: No. No there is no question whatsoever. The changes of what is accepted behavior in society have all but completely destroyed the traditional family.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history, and everything I have learned has led me to question the notion that what I am told is "traditional" and "normal" must be so.
Traditional in what tradition? In the traditions of 19th century America? In what segment of society?
The only "traditional family" I am aware of in history was an invention of 20th century marketing that appealed to Americans who craved a sense of stability and normality in a consumer-driven lifestyle. Many people need to be told that what they are doing is ok- that the choices they are making are "normal" and "traditional." I'm sorry, but that's Bollocks. And it doesn't stand the test of any actual history I'm aware of- even the limited scope of American history, among just the white middle classes.
I guess you must have been talking about the "traditional family" that sent the kids off to work in factories at the age of 8. Oh no, you were talking about the "traditional family" in which the mother could expect to die in childbirth and be replaced by a second wife. Or the "traditional family" that could expect half of its children to survive to adulthood, or of course the "traditional family" that sold its daughters off as soon as possible to husbands who needed them to produce sons to work on a farm.
No wait, you meant the "traditional family" where it was acceptable to marry your first cousin. The "traditional family" where the wife was treated as the property of a husband, and was of course not given the right to vote, because in a "traditional family," the man is responsible for those kinds of decisions.
Traditional family my ass. It's a product you bought, and you just don't realize it. And you couch it in terms of "the destruction of the traditional family," as if there was some cherished institution where all of these things went on and everybody was just so satisfied and morally fulfilled by it all, and now it's *DESTROYED* because we are more permissive of different behaviors.
How has society become *more* permissive anyway? You can't beat your wife or sell your kids for labor, or own slaves, or buy politicians outright anymore. Seems society has gotten a little touchy on the subject. You can't even lynch fags anymore. What is the world coming to??? I would say as a straight, white, middle class male, society has become a little less permissive for me. No marrying my cousins for me no matter how attractive. DAMN you liberals and your destruction of my traditions.
quote:The changes of what is accepted behavior in society have all but completely destroyed the traditional family.
I wouldn't say it's quite so dire, odouls. But I agree that changes in society have made it easier to get along without the "traditional" family structure, and thus more likely that more people will choose a different lifestyle model.
Not all the changes are inherently bad for the traditional family. For example: when women entered the workplace and began gaining social and financial independence that was a GOOD thing for the family-- it meant a opening of opportunities for girls.
What was BAD for the family is that there was no cultural impetus for men to step up and meet increased responsibilities for childcare and homemaking. Women joined men in the workplace, but men were not pushed to join women's work at home. I think that created a sort of social vacuum that we still suffer from. The solution is not to legislate against gender equality, but to encourage men to see homemaking as a legitimate, manly pursuit, and one that adult males need to be responsible for.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How has society become *more* permissive anyway?
1) Increased acceptance of divorce paralleled by fewer social and cultural supports to avoid it. 2) Increased acceptance of sexual behavior that was previously considered deviant. (NOTE: "Acceptance," not necessarily "incidents.") 3) Less emphasis on personal excellence and personal responsibility. (I realize this might be contentious-- I'll point to the recent study done on how colleges are lowering their standards in order to make sure that the percentage of students getting high marks remains stable). Grade inflation. Also, note any post where rivka talks about her job. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't exactly agree with that. If you ask me, it's kind of good that what equals a traditional family has changed. And it wasn't always the nuclear family OSC harps about either. That's a recent invention. Traditional families were usually extended families. Marriage was more about commerce than love and women had no power. I'm kind of glad we have questioned that. Even if people do divorce and not nearly as much as folks think they do, it's good to have that option instead of being stuck in a violent marriage. I wish people spent half as much energy looking at things that REALLY destroy families: domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, strict gender roles. Those are way worse than gay marriage.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Not all the changes are inherently bad for the traditional family. For example: when women entered the workplace and began gaining social and financial independence that was a GOOD thing for the family-- it meant a opening of opportunities for girls.
What was BAD for the family is that there was no cultural impetus for men to step up and meet increased responsibilities for childcare and homemaking. Women joined men in the workplace, but men were not pushed to join women's work at home. I think that created a sort of social vacuum that we still suffer from. The solution is not to legislate against gender equality, but to encourage men to see homemaking as a legitimate, manly pursuit, and one that adult males need to be responsible for.
Hear! Hear! I have no questions for you on the above statements -- just appreciation.. .(Am I allowed to say so? )
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
What do you think it means?
Those don't match though, under the latter definition, someone that intensely fears homosexuals (or homosexuality) would match the definition. Under the former, only hatred applies.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those don't match though, under the latter definition, someone that intensely fears homosexuals (or homosexuality) would match the definition. Under the former, only hatred applies.
I think that qualifies as splitting hairs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree. I think that there is a world of difference between, for example, hating homosexuals and being very afraid of what homosexuality might do to society. Both of those would qualify as homophobia.
It is not a very useful word.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: I don't agree. It's actually interesting because normally, if I intensely fear spiders, I'm an arachnophobe regardless of whether I actually hate spiders or not. Alternatively, I can hate pigeons and want to kill all of them without having any fear of them at all.
The emphasis with arachnophobe is on the fear whereas with homophobe, if the "commonly accepted" definition has truly prevailed then the emphasis is on the hate (whereas the definition you linked allows for both).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate and Mucus, Are you denying that "Homophobe" has become routinely used as a pejorative that implies hate, contempt, prejudice, and fear of individuals. You might as well be arguing that "niger" is a perfectly legitimate spanish word.
I don't for a minute believe that the people who are editing OSC's website to add "homophobe" are simply saying that he fears what legalizing gay marriage would do to society with no intent to denigrate him as a bigot. Since the word is so commonly used as an epithet, people who don't want it to be interpreted as and epithet had best choose another word.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's actually interesting because normally, if I intensely fear spiders, I'm an arachnophobe regardless of whether I actually hate spiders or not.
Everyone I've ever known who had a intense fear of spiders, also hated them. It's not a very persuasive argument.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate and Mucus, Are you denying that "Homophobe" has become routinely used as a pejorative that implies hate, contempt, prejudice, and fear of individuals. You might as well be arguing that "niger" is a perfectly legitimate spanish word.
I don't for a minute believe that the people who are editing OSC's website to add "homophobe" are simply saying that he fears what legalizing gay marriage would do to society with no intent to denigrate him as a bigot. Since the word is so commonly used as an epithet, people who don't want it to be interpreted as and epithet had best choose another word.
No. I am saying that people use the word in different ways to mean a range of things and that because of that it is not a very useful word.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fearing the impact a group or an idea might have on society is not equivalent psychologically to a phobia.
I'm afraid of what the Tea Party is doing to America. I'm afraid of what political conservatives are doing to the Christian religion. I'm afraid of what the big oil is doing to cause people to doubt climate science. I'm afraid that the wealthy are buying the US government. All of the those fears inform the way I vote and my political activities yet I wouldn't call any of them "phobias".
A lot of people fear the influence of the Mormon Church on politics, particular regarding Gay marriage. Does that make you "Mormonophobes"?
A phobia is not synonymous with fear, even intense fear of irrational fear. A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. People with phobia's go to great lengths to avoid the situations that cause them anxiety. When they can't, they experience a sense of panic including rapid heart beat, shortness of breath, trembling, anger, and an intense desire to flee. Do you have reason to believe that Card experiences those kinds of symptoms when he thinks about gay marriage or comes in contract with gays? Do you think that's what people typically mean when they say Card is a "homophobe"?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: I think you're running quickly over a whole bunch of different things.
a) You're simply wrong on "everyone." I intensely fear spiders in my personal space, I certainly don't hate them. I don't think that is a rare attitude.
b) Whether "homophobe" is routinely used as a pejorative is a completely separate discussion from whether we use it to designate hate or fear.
For example, there are loads of self-hating gay Republicans, they could be classified as homophobes using the hate definition, but they don't necessarily fear gays (they may even go out of their way to hire them). OSC fears open homosexual behaviour, he could be classified as a homophobe under the fear definition.
Arguably both aren't very flattering and could be categorised as pejoratives. That is a separate issue.
c) There are no "people" that are editing OSC's website because AFAIK there is only one person (as opposed to people) that is editing Wikipedia (no ownership by OSC).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I think the dictionary definition supports fear alone. And I think in card's case, it is reasonable to argue it is a phobia. It may not be, however.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. Oh! pity me, my beloved friends, for such is my sense of duty that, once out of my indentures, I shall feel myself bound to devote myself heart and soul to your extermination!"
quote:And it wasn't always the nuclear family OSC harps about either. That's a recent invention
1) OSC harps on the nuclear family? Can you show evidence for this? Have you read his essays about being a grandparent? 2) Define "recent."
quote:Even if people do divorce and not nearly as much as folks think they do
What number do you imagine folks have in their heads, Syn?
quote:it's good to have that option instead of being stuck in a violent marriage.
It's better to have children who grow up knowing how to treat their future spouses, and having role models they can look to for examples. It's also better to have a support and sounding system that will permit people to honestly discuss their problems and get help for them.
quote:I wish people spent half as much energy looking at things that REALLY destroy families: domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, strict gender roles. Those are way worse than gay marriage.
Those things destroy individual families, and perhaps affect families closely linked to the ones destroyed; but the current idea of homosexual marriage is a sea change in terms of how family is defined.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
