posted
After being sold on your style of writing 8 months ago (I was told by a friend to pick up Enders Game), I have read through the entire series since then (including the worthing saga). Thank you for the detailed characters and vivid memories.
That being said, I wanted to comment on the harsh critisism you have been getting from the press and from these boards. I do not understand the anger towards your views when all you ask for is the evidence to be brought out in the open, and for it to be evaluated. We are demonized and labeled if we even question the lefts views on the topic.
Whether gays / lesbians are brainwashed or born the way they are, we have to question the impact of allowing them to marry and adopt children may have on society. Like you mentioned, why the scientific method is not allowed to be used to solve this matter is not just puzzling, but downright asinine.
Anyway, I hope this mess clears up nicely. Kudos to you for sticking to your views, and not allowing the radical left to sway you.
PS - Is there ever a chance you might return to the Worthing Saga? I actually enjoyed that book more than *GASP* Enders Game.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad you liked the Worthing Saga. It was my bestselling story series prior to Ender's Game, and I like to think it still has merit.
I heard from several people in New Zealand that they wish it were still possible to get Hot Sleep, my first novel and the earliest version of the Worthing story. I'm toying with the idea of simply putting that old version up online. I have to get clearance from the publisher of The Worthing Saga, because technically it would be a "competing version" - but I think that having my first novel out there again would enable writers to take encouragement from all the things I did wrong <grin> and also spark interest, perhaps, in the much better Worthing Saga version.
Meanwhile, the current attitude of hatred or disdain for people who simply want scientific and democratic processes to take place before making massive social experiments whose consequences may not be what we intend is unlikely to change any time soon. The Orthodox Left is as mindless as the Orthodox Right was when they controlled things back in the 1950s, and every bit as determined to use McCarthyist techniques to squelch opposition and cement their hold on power.
Fortunately, they expose the emptiness of their thinking every time they resort to invective or scorn instead of reasoned argument; unfortunately, our educational system is so bad that few Americans can tell the difference between name-calling and serious discussion any more. <sigh>
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you argue like a debater all you need to do is have a clever refutation" said Petra. Peter replies "and you argue like a 9 year old you stick your fingers in your ear and say "lalala" "and same to you"".
That reminds me of debates these days. Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Hot Sleep tell the same story of Lared and Jason or does it have different characters? Either way, I would very much like to read it if you put it online
Also, do you think you might ever continue the story where Lared and Jason leave on the boat?
quote: I do not understand the anger towards your views when all you ask for is the evidence to be brought out in the open, and for it to be evaluated.
I have avoided debating the gay marriage issue directly with Scott because a) I like the guy and b) I don't like having to deal with straw men. In fact, straw men frustrate me as much as they appear to frustrate him (based on the amount of time he spends complaining about the liberal use of straw men in the media and by politicians).
Unfortunately, I need to point out here that Scott is setting up a straw man, similar to his "dialogue" essay of a few years back. The opinion to which he's objecting here is hardly universally accepted by the groups he's demonizing.
Speaking for myself, here are my primary objections to waiting for the "evidence to be brought out into the open" and evaluated:
1) I believe that the homosexual marriage issue is largely one of societal acceptance, not marriage itself. There are some small subgroups that may well be worried about a legitimate effect on their own marriages -- say, a church afraid that they would be required by the federal government to hold religious marriages for gay couples -- but I consider this fear unfounded, since even to this day churches are permitted to discriminate against couples for far more frivolous reasons. Permitting civil marriage is not equivalent to requiring religious marriage. (I should point out that it's precisely to eliminate this confusion that I believe we should replace all civil marriages in this country with civil unions.)
Because it's a matter of social acceptance, second-class "compromises" are merely ways to continue to emphasize that homosexual unions are not equivalent relationships, to say that we as a society do not value them as much and will not support them as much.
I understand why some people, primarily for religious reasons, would hold this opinion. However -- and here's the kicker -- I do not believe that the people who hold this opinion will change their mind if statistics and data become available (and, by the way, what kind of data would you accept for this, and how would you control for societal variables) that demonstrate that homosexual couples are as good or better for society. No matter how the numbers fall, the people who don't want to have to consider homosexual couples worth societal recognition, to put it bluntly, still won't; no sociological study is going to trump their interpretation of the Bible.
So what does this mean? This means that any suggestion that we wait to "study" the "data" is for the vast majority of people opposed to same-sex marriage just a smokescreen, a delaying tactic, a way to drag things out. There isn't a data point in the world that would matter. There are still people out there who believe in a literal reading of Genesis, for God's sake. (Pun intended.)
2) I also tend to regard this -- again, as I consider this a matter of social acceptance of a racially-determined behavior with no obvious intrinsic harm (and note of course that these are premises of mine that many people will not accept) -- as a civil rights issue. I agree that in an ideal world, legislation should be liberal enough to ensure the liberties and social privileges of harmless minorities; however, ample historical evidence suggests that this has not been the case, and I don't think it's inappropriate for the judiciary to recognize Constitutional rights to certain societal benefits that the legislature and the majority society, for whatever reason, is unprepared to accept.
Consider that Congress voted almost unanimously to censure a federal judge's criticism of the presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Consider, too, that Congress did not vote to criticize obviously odious decisions like Dred Scott, or even Roe v. Wade. Clearly, Congress considers it important to pander to a religious majority in this country, whether that majority really needs or wants it. And the common perception among the legislature -- valid or not -- is that religion is opposed to recognizing the value of homosexual monogamy.
Now, that said, I agree that rushing things by slamming them through the courts will inevitably continue to politicize the courts. More than any other issue, even, I think this has the potential to tear apart the country: not same-sex marriage, but the perception that the courts exist to interpret and enforce party platforms, regardless of whether or not that's what they're actually doing.
Had Scott simply made that criticism, rather than digging at a largely hypothetical -- even imaginary -- liberal cabal of snarky, subversive "elites" -- I would even have agreed with him.
The problem with your argument, tom, is not that a few subgroups want this stopped. And to claim that skeptics only want data and information showing the consequences because they want to "stall" the issue is a hasty generalization.
Why are you so certain that the data will go in the favor of the gay-marriage advocates? Let’s reverse the situation and say that there is strong evidence of a social breakdown if gay marriages are allowed. Will that evidence change the mind of the advocates? Will they even care? Why are they so bent on not looking at the data, or act like it doesn't exist?
These are the questions you need to ask yourself. I, for one, would not like to see two fathers or mothers raising a kid. He or She will (most likely) get abused in school because of it, not to mention other side effects of not having a balanced family.
And as far as the Genesis "creation" remark, I have heard a lot sillier things than that. Spontaneous generation comes to mind. Oh yeah, whats that new theory they came up with recently, um, "Nothing exploded and created our galaxy." - Pure Genius.
Oh, and before you go and label me a creationist, think again. I learned how to do this rare thing called "critical thought" that sometimes leaves my in very uncomfortable positions which make me throw up my hands and not claim anything - how we all got here being one of them.
quote:Whether gays / lesbians are brainwashed or born the way they are, we have to question the impact of allowing them to marry and adopt children may have on society.
Unless the opportunity to form relationships with other consenting adults is a basic liberty that we would be wrong to infringe even if permitting it brings about negative social consequences. Hardly anyone denies that there are such rights, nor that the right to form heterosexual relationships is one of them.
Perhaps your opponents don't reject science. They merely think scientific facts about the social impact of an activity are irrelevant to the question of whether we have an inalienable right to take part in that activity.
quote:Meanwhile, the current attitude of hatred or disdain for people who simply want scientific and democratic processes to take place before making massive social experiments whose consequences may not be what we intend is unlikely to change any time soon.
Again, perhaps it's not about the consequences -- perhaps it's about protecting our rights (you're not a utilitarian, are you?). If there is a basic right being infringed by our current system of laws, there's no reason to undertake research to see what the consequences of protecting that right might be. The consequences don't bear on the question of whether it's ethical to protect our basic rights.
quote:And as far as the Genesis "creation" remark, I have heard a lot sillier things than that. Spontaneous generation comes to mind. Oh yeah, whats that new theory they came up with recently, um, "Nothing exploded and created our galaxy." - Pure Genius.
I would recommend that you take a closer look at inflation and the related theories of the universe's origin (perhaps learning the graduate-level physics required to understand the literature) before you presume to criticize them.
posted
The thread seems to have gone in the "my prejudices are better than your prejudices" direction ... but to answer a question asked way back there ... No, Lared and Sala are not in Hot Sleep. It's more the straightforward tale of Jason Worthing and the founding of the colony.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I see how any of the above has much to do with prejudice, unless by 'prejudices' you mean opinions about how we ought to be governed by the law.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, perhaps it's not about the consequences -- perhaps it's about protecting our rights (you're not a utilitarian, are you?). If there is a basic right being infringed by our current system of laws, there's no reason to undertake research to see what the consequences of protecting that right might be. The consequences don't bear on the question of whether it's ethical to protect our basic rights.
I don't really see anyone infringing on the rights of anyone else here. Right now, gays do not have a right to marry. The argument here is whether or not they should be given the right to marry. And researching the consequence of giving citizens new rights should not thrown aside. And it sure as heck shouldn't be left up to a supreme court. Why not let the citizens vote?
quote:I would recommend that you take a closer look at inflation and the related theories of the universe's origin (perhaps learning the graduate-level physics required to understand the literature) before you presume to criticize them.
I like how you presume to criticize me in that I have not already read the material. In fact, I start my masters program in Computational Theory next semester. I have the Math background to realize the main gist of what Brian Greene, Michael Kaku, and even Steven Hawking theorize. I do not dispell quantum physics, or any other scientific theory of our origin.
What I do dispell, however, is when religion gets mixed up with science and things like macro-evolution are created. If that last sentance does not make sense to you, I recommend you read into the circular reasoning and data manipulation that goes on in the scientific community (Biology mainly) and the faith, not science, it takes to believe in it.
The good news is that you can understand the fallacies with much less than a high-school education.
quote:(you're not a utilitarian, are you?)
Absolutely not. And I fail to see the connection. It would seem to me that a society which bases it's values on pain and pleasure alone would be more prone to having gay marriages anyway [see: Holland]...
well, actually same sex marriages are not allowed right now - a same sex marriage need not be about homoerotica, I suppose . . . what if two spinsters sisters or bachelor brothers (or best friends of either sex) wanted to marry to ensure that they have equal rights under the law, since "marriage" apparently admits the couple to the full responsibility and honors of society?
*hmmm - wanders off to play with that idea some more*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't really see anyone infringing on the rights of anyone here. Right now, gays do not have a right to marry. The argument here is whether or not they should be given the right to marry. And researching the consequence of giving citizens new rights should not thrown aside.
Gays don't have a legal right to marry right now, but I maintain that they have a natural, inalienable right to do so. Even if there were no US Constitution, it would be wrong for me to abridge your free speech or exercise of religion. This is how I feel about gay marriage as well.
By logic like yours, the consequences of giving blacks and women the right to vote should have been carefully researched before the relevant amendments to the Constitution were passed. I think that's clearly false. It's wrong for the law to withold an inalienable right from someone, regardless of the consequences.
quote:I have the Math background to realize the main gist of what Brian Greene, Michael Kaku, and even Steven Hawking theorize. I do not dispell quantum physics, or any other scientific theory of our origin.
Sorry for being presumptive, but all the same it sounded to me like you were criticizing theories about the universe emerging from nothing. To understand and criticize such things you need a very strong background in both quantum theory and relativity.
In any case, I don't like to debate evolution. I think physics and astronomy give sufficiently strong evidence against young-Earth creationism that we don't even need to discuss the "softer" science of biology to decide that particular issue.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing voting rights, black decrimination, religion, and freedom of speech to gay marriage is not sensible.
We both disagree on the issue, and I am going to leave it at that. I believe that screwing around with the constructs of society could have serious reprocussions, but I guess we will have to leave it up to our courts to initiate the experiment for us.
quote:In any case, I don't like to debate evolution. I think physics and astronomy give sufficiently strong evidence against young-Earth creationism
The problem is, they give strong evidence for a young earth as well (although not creationism, which really isn't debatable anyway).
posted
Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
But of course, no one here has any prejudices. No one jumps to conclusions based on a priori reasoning. Who could possibly think such a thing, when right-thinking people base all their judgments on science?
quote:Why are you so certain that the data will go in the favor of the gay-marriage advocates? Let’s reverse the situation and say that there is strong evidence of a social breakdown if gay marriages are allowed. Will that evidence change the mind of the advocates?
You know, knowing the gay couples I do, I suspect that it would. If you were to convince my uncle, for example, that his marriage would bring about the destruction of American society, I think he'd probably live unmarried for the rest of his life.
quote:I, for one, would not like to see two fathers or mothers raising a kid. He or She will (most likely) get abused in school because of it, not to mention other side effects of not having a balanced family.
Ah. The kid would get teased, and therefore we shouldn't permit this. Your argument boils down to the fact that some people aren't decent human beings.
But you know what? Kids get teased for lots of things, and there are lots of side effects to lots of various parental choices. (See my earlier post for examples.) Statistically, a kid raised by anyone in Alabama is more likely to have serious problems than a kid raised by two men. Should we prevent anyone in Alabama from getting married, based on that "evidence?"
quote: it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
It's not that I regard religion as illegitimate; I recognize that people make decisions based on morality, and many people use religion as a moral guide. However, in a society in which religion is not universally shared, I do not think it's a particularly good basis for legislation. I should point out that you agree; you've actually said that you have occasionally struggled to find secular justifications for various Mormon doctrines, presumably because "my religion says so" was, at one level or another, not good enough.
In particular, I do not accept that your religion gives you sufficient cause to prevent me from doing something. I enjoy, for example, the occasional drink of alcohol -- and coffee, for that matter. Sometimes in the same drink. I recognize that, for religious reasons, you do not -- and that's fine; you can drink what you like. However, I would get rather upset if Mormons were to spearhead a movement to make not only alcohol but also all hot drinks unavailable in America. The alcohol thing succeeded once precisely because there are valid, observable reasons to ban alcohol; there are obvious and measurable negative effects of drinking it that could be argued to trump the positives. I don't see any such inherent harms in homosexual sex, however.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me.
Of course religion is legitimate when making moral and political decisions. I happen to agree most of the decisions GW makes. I was just pointing out that comparing the decision to give blacks voting rights and giving gays the right to marry each other are to separate things which aren't even related.
Contrasting the two creates a false dichotomy which has been the basis for liberal rhetoric for the last 20 years.
And as I said, I think religion is a perfectly valid reason to hold an opinion. I think it produces poor legislation, however.
For that matter, I think most legislation "for the sake of society" results in poor legislation, which is why I'm almost but not quite a libertarian. I prefer legislators to stick to writing laws in response to obvious individual harms, as doing things for "society's" sake opens us up to the tyranny of the good-intentioned.
posted
One thing I have to admire about this board is the level of maturity I have seen so far from it's users.
This is the first time I have been able to debate a sensitive topic without loads of insecure puppets coming in and starting a flame war.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Does giving legal and social privileges to same-sex relationships legitimize those relationships? You betcha. And when a large group of people believe that type of behavior is contrary to both spiritual and natural law, it is against all reason to encourage it by providing legal rewards for such behavior.
We live in a society that allows women to "choose" to abort their babies yet will punish them if they drink alcohol while pregnant, where youth can serve in the military before they can vote, where Mary Kay LeTourneau can sleep with a 13-year-old boy, go to prison, then marry him later without a major public outcry. There are disparities all the time, and not every whim and lifestyle should be accorded equal rights before the law.
Opponents to same-sex marriages believe civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact. The big lie is that behavior in the bedroom has no impact in society at large––on the contrary, our core behaviors affect how we treat one another, how we vote, how we interact, what values are passed along to our children by those who are not their parents.
People have the right to draw a line in the sand, to say this is right and this is not. That the great freedom of our society, to defend and fight for our beliefs, and have the right, no matter what side we're on. I'd love to see the ten commandments in my local courthouse, but others have already drawn that line in the sand, haven't they?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Opponents to same-sex marriages believe civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact."
Great. So prove that same-sex marriage has this impact, and I'd be right with you on that one.
Until then, I'd say that the burden of proof is yours, if you're going to ostracize a group based on theoretical harm.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back and reread OSC's essay Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization and I believe the puzzled disbelief that someone as empathic as OSC could write such a bigoted thing is misguided. You cannot read any of OSC's works without encountering his emphasis on family, on community, on the responsibilities of the individual to control personal impulses and desires to build a better family, a better neighborhood, a better country. I would suggest, in fact, that it is the compelling theme underlying all of his works (along with "put your characters in the worst place they'll ever be," of course). When you realize that OSC sees the acceptance of homosexual marriage (as opposed to homosexualtiy per se, an opinion that doesn't enter these essays) as a threat to the basis of marriage and civilization itself, another in a string of triumphs of personal selfishness over personal duty, his language and his fervor are clear and perfectly understandable. His reaction is similar to a reaction I might have if people were petitioning the legislature to have children's games of playing house recognized as legally binding marriages.
I cannot fault him for his efforts. I see no reason to castigate the man for his concern or his conclusions. I can question his assumptions, though.
I believe that providing a social structure for homosexuals would ultimately strengthen society by providing a social structure for gays to aspire to. KarlEd's excellent post on the problems of growing up gay illustrates the lack of direction offered. I suggest that gay marriage would result in lessened promiscuity and stronger family ties as homosexuals seek to do the same thing their straight friends and family do: raise a family.
However, I would also work to remove "no fault" divorce laws and fight to emphasize the importance of commitment in a marriage. You want to get married? Fine, but be aware of what it means, how important it is, and how much you'll be expected to do to keep it going, happy, and productive. No quitting because the spark is gone or because you kinda like that girl in the office or just because times get tough. I favor letting gays marry but I want the marriage bar to be raised higher for gays and straights to hit. Take it away from being something that any straight couple, casual, drunken, or seriously committed, can do, and move it to something that only seriously committed couples of whatever gender can do. And emphasize that that's the highest achievement a person can make.
The question is not why we should legislate to allow whims, but why we should legislate to allow some people's whims while ignoring other people's commitments. I see absolutely no reason why Britney's 52-hour stupidity should be considered a "marriage" while a couple together for ten years, twenty years, are considered a drain on society because they're the same sex. My suggestion would work towards a society where marriage was considered a privilege and an honor, whatever your gender.
An aside: In fact, I thought Mary Kay LeTourneau's desire to marry the boy was a mark in her favor. Had she never touched him but waited patiently until he was of age and then they got married, it would be a love story. She didn't, but she paid her dues for breaking the law and then married him anyway.
"I'd love to see the ten commandments in my local courthouse, but others have already drawn that line in the sand, haven't they?" Yup. Hang the Ten Commandments in the courtroom along with other displays of the sources of law (as the friezes in the Supreme Court do) and I'll be right there holding the ladder for you. Try and hang them by themselves or stick a ten-ton monument to them in the front yard of the courthouse and I'll be one of the ones holding the picket sign against you. My line isn't that they can't be there, it's that they can't be the only ones displayed. What confuses me is why that position is difficult to understand.
[ April 04, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris: You nailed it on the head when it comes to marriage in general; the very concept has become so watered down by a long list of moving the line further, and further, and further away.
This is exactly my point.
Tom's assertion of proof is patently false––seeing that homosexuality is an inconsistent trait in circles of theology, evolution and social behavior, it is the abberation that bears the burden of proof.
Obviously one can rarely convince the other. For those fueled by spiritual motives, it probably requires conversion to that ethic before one fully understands one's point-of-view. But I am of the opinion that traditional marriage, properly followed and held sacred, is the best means for the long-term health of future generations. That belief is based both on what I know as well as eternal truth above and beyond what might be readily visible to scientific study. To those who do not believe, I can understand why that seems like a poor explanation. It's a basic difference of seeing the world.
There are so-called "primitive" tribes in Indonesia even today where the men sodomize their boys as a passage of manhood. It happened all the time among the so-called "enlightened" Greeks and Romans. To them, it is "harmless" and "natural" for balance in their society. To them, this is their "pursuit of happiness." The boys might actually feel it is important to them, too.
Would it be acceptable to legislate rights to not only allow such behavior––but reward them for it? When does the line stand firm? Who has the ultimate right to make such a decision?
(For me, I believe it's the vote of the people, not judges.)
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, for many of us that proof has been made in individual cases. We've seen gay couples thrive, we've seen straight couples falter (and vice versa). And we start wondering how much of the stress and difficulties of keeping a gay marriage going is due to the inherent instability of such a thing, or because society is so overwhelmingly against it. And when this seems unjust, some of us speak out about it.
No suggestion has been made to allow sex below the age of consent, gay or straight. I'm not even suggesting that everything is "normal" somewhere. Only that I think allowing and encouraging committed couples to marry and become productive members of society is ultimately better for us than denying acceptance to gay couples seeking stability while looking the other way as straight couples mock the whole deal.
[ April 04, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thoughts on same sex marraiges is what does it do to those of us who aren't homosexual? If we(the general populace) let them marry it doesn't turn the rest of us gay or send us all to hell. Its a victim less crime as they say. And my thoughts on those who say that two men/women raising a child messes the kid up are this; does it mess them up any more than abusive parents of opposite sexes and just because their not "married" meens they can't raise a child? Hasn't any one seen the "Birdcage" with Robin Williams? I'm not gay but I personally don't see how having same sex marraiges hurts anyone.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me boil it down, if I can post something under 500 words for once:
I am not against gay marriages, nor am I especially for them. I am against frivolous marriages, and I'm willing to respect serious commitments of any type.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, also Mr. Card I think it would be great if you put out Hot Sleep, but why not go all the way and include Capital aswell. Eventually you could post all your out of print books...
Sorry,us fans are never satisfied are we? Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Fictionwise is doing very well at presenting out-of-print books in e-formats, hint, hint...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I don't think the problem is so much frivouluss marraiges as just frivouluss relationships in general. I know way to many people that treat relationships like a joke. One minute someone is in love with this person and next week their in love with that person. The marraiges you hear of lasting fifty years are mostly from the days where the only person they have ever slept with is their wife and they maybe had a girlfreind here or their. I know more freshman here at my highschool who aren't virgins than in any other grade. Theirs more Senior virgins than Freshman! It seems to be getting worse every year.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I suspect the only real difference is that finally, after all these years, women can fool around with almost as few consequences as men have all throughout history.
Few physical consequences, anyway.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom's assertion of proof is patently false––seeing that homosexuality is an inconsistent trait in circles of theology, evolution and social behavior, it is the abberation that bears the burden of proof."
Why, exactly, does merely being an "aberration" require proof? If you ask me, what requires proof is the decision to censure a behavior or ostracize a group, not merely being in a minority group. Two men marrying has no obvious negative consequence; preventing two men from marrying, however, does.
Would you require that someone who plays roleplaying games -- a vanishingly small minority -- prove to you that this behavior is not harmful before you permit it or choose to accept such players as equals? No.
Why, then, do you require that homosexuals prove to your satisfaction that their behavior is not harmful before you agree to grant it social sanction?
-------
quote: The marraiges you hear of lasting fifty years are mostly from the days where the only person they have ever slept with is their wife and they maybe had a girlfreind here or their.
As Dave Barry once observed, you can tell that the Great Depression must have been really stressful, since the people who lived through it all look really old.
quote:Hmmm. So we're out of the closet on this one - it's religion that you regard as illegitimate in a discussion of political and moral decisions.
I believe this was in fact aimed at me.
Of course religion is legitimate in discussion of political and moral decisions. All matters of fact are important to politics and morality -- so if there is in fact a God, that ought to be quite important. I don't believe in God myself. What I'm trying to do is explain why, if you agree with me, you won't agree that the social consequences of gay marriage should be studied before the ban on it is lifted. Thus the refusal of gay rights groups to study the social consequences of gay marriage before trying to lift the ban is understandable and correct, from my point of view.
Now, you might disagree with me that the right of two consenting adults to form a relationship is a basic, inalienable right. If so, it makes sense that you think the consequences of gay marriage should be carefully considered before it is permitted. What I was trying to do in my original post is point out that, for those of us who view this as a basic right, the consequences don't matter to whether gay marriage should be permitted. It must be permitted, because our right to form relationships as we please should be respected.
Thus it is not a trivial or obvious point to say that the consequences of gay marriage should be carefully weighed before we choose to permit it. You can't say off the bat that people are foolish not to consider the consequences of gay marriage, not if they believe (as I do) that the consequences don't matter to whether gay marriage is right.
quote:But of course, no one here has any prejudices. No one jumps to conclusions based on a priori reasoning. Who could possibly think such a thing, when right-thinking people base all their judgments on science?
It's not clear how the definition of 'prejudice' being used here differs from 'considered opinion.' Until I know how the word is being used, I can't answer the accusation.
As for a priori reasoning, that does often lead us to the truth. How else do I know that 1+1=2?
quote:Comparing voting rights, black decrimination, religion, and freedom of speech to gay marriage is not sensible.
The only comparison I made is that they're both inalienable rights, on my view. I was explaining why discussion of the social consequences of gay marriage just doesn't enter into the decision process, just like the consequences of free speech have no bearing on whether we should allow free speech. We must allow it, good consequences or bad, because we can't rightly prevent people from exercising their liberties.
I really don't want to comment on this but I believe that they have the right to marry because it is their to do so because the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms garuantees it. It is simply a believe in their right as Canadian citizens, not whethor or not that if it is wrong. It is irrelevent what the morals or ethics are if it is their right to do so then they can do it within a reasonable degree allowed by the law. Plain and simple, for us crazy conucks at least. Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Sticks fingies in ears* LaLaLaLa Also: People who saw the Matrix (mankind) heard the little spiel about human beings being a virus for not developing a natural equilibrium with the environment. Regardless of my views which I will not state here is it possible that gays/lesbians/people who choose not to produce offspring are in fact nature's way of forcing population control? 6 billion people can't spiral into 8 billion if half of them are homosexual/childless. Just a thought.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been following this topic on and off on this and the Ornery site for some time now and I would like to put my two cents in.
The proper process for instituting changes in the law of the land, as I understand it is as follows. A new law, or change to an existing law is proposed. Sometimes this change is proposed by a member of the legislature and sometimes by constituents, special interest groups, or even the Executive branch. The proposal gets put into the form of a bill and is discussed in conferences and the feedback from this process is used to refine the bill if it needs refining. Sometimes a bill will be killed in this process, but if the idea is worthy it can always be introduced again. Once this discussion has happened it moves to the general assembly of the legislature for more discussion and eventually a vote. If the new or changed law passes it goes to the Exectutive branch to either be signed into law or vetoed and if it does not pass it goes away unless the idea is proposed again in another bill in which case the process starts over. In bicammeral legislatures like the United States Legislature this needs to happen in both parts of the legislature, either serially or in parallel, and a reconcilliation of the resulting bills may need to happen requiring more deliberation. All of this deliberating allows for a discussion of the concerns of different groups and at least a chance to try to reconcile the differences between different groups who see things differently with regard to the bill. If the bill is passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Executive branch, or the veto of the Executive branch overridden by the legislature, then it becomes law. Once it is a law it may be challenged in the judiciary and the judiciary may decide that it violates part of the Constitution as written and strike part or all of the law down. It could also uphold the law against such challenges as well.
When a Judge decides to create new laws from the bench, as opposed to simply striking down bad laws, and such decisions get upheld by the Supreme Court the only recourse that the Legislature has is to push for a Constitutional ammendment which overrules the decision of the Supreme Court. The reason for this is that while the Legislature can revisit the original idea and craft a new bill which avoids the flaws that a struck down law contained making for a better law, there is no way to rewrite a law "written" by the Supreme Court. The only ways in which such decisions can be reversed is if the Supreme Court reverses itself in a future case or the Constitution is ammended. There is also no opportunity for prolonged discussion and deliberation which can craft a sensible law in these kinds of Judicial declarations. The Legislature can go through the process of crafting bills to support these decrees from the Supreme Court in a manner that reduces the turmoil from their implementation. By doing so they have the opportunity to discuss the merits of the decree and reconcile differing points of view, but if that discussion results in a rejection of the decree there is nothing that they can do about it. They cannot override the decree except by crafting an ammendment to the Constitution.
To sum up my rambling here, I feel that ammendments should be few and far between because they are litteraly the highest law of the land and can only be overridden by another ammendment. Using the ammendment process to pass laws which should be implemented in the United States Code via normal legislation is bad policy in my opinion. Since the only way for the Legislature to override a decree from the Supreme Court is by passing an ammendment to the Constitution which makes the Supreme Court decision unconstitutional, I feel that activist Judicial decisions, Judicial decisions which create new laws as opposed to interpreting existing laws, have no place in our legal system. In fact I find them to be downright reckless. If the issue which a Judge feels merits a new law has merit, then puting such a new law through the process of the legistature is better for our society in the long run than decreeing the new law from the bench. Is there a channel by which the Supreme Court can introduce a bill for consideration by the Legislature? Would it be desireable for such a channel to be added as possible alternative to creating laws from the bench?
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though we've hammered out these issues on previous threads, it's always a hoot. There's so much to address, but I'll only pick a few chestnuts...
quote:Would you require that someone who plays roleplaying games -- a vanishingly small minority -- prove to you that this behavior is not harmful before you permit it or choose to accept such players as equals? No.
When there's a chance it might do harm? You betcha. I was in Junior High when Dungeons & Dragons first came out, and parents groups worked very hard to stop the school from allowing the creation of a club based on reports that the game led to suicide and satanism. Pretty silly, obviously, but if we believe there is an intrinsic harm in it, then YES, we have a right to oppose it.
The problem, obviously, is the definition of "harm."
BTW, this has nothing to do with free speech. I have no problem with homosexuals living together or practicing their lifestyle. I have many gay friends and associates and I agree with their lifestyle as much as they agree with my religion. But we're still great friends. It has everything to do with granting rights to lifestyle choices that may not deserve them, especially when other choices are denied such rights without question.
quote: Regardless of my views which I will not state here is it possible that gays/lesbians/people who choose not to produce offspring are in fact nature's way of forcing population control? 6 billion people can't spiral into 8 billion if half of them are homosexual/childless. Just a thought.
I've heard this before, from a very angry homosexual opposed to those opposed to his views. There is zero proof of this, and it would certainly make Darwin spin in his grave, I think. Homosexuality (a committed, same-gender sexual relationship) is almost impossible to find in nature. It's clearly a human invention.
(And please, no links to the gay penguins at the zoo. Such things happen in prisons too, but you don't see THOSE kind of relationships considered proof for the normality of homosexuality! )
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't particularly care if it's a choice. Don't care if it's genetic. Don't care if it's a mix of the two, or if some are born that way and some choose it, or what. Don't see how proving the actual root cause would make a difference.
I stand by my statement. I am not against gay marriages, nor am I especially for them. I am against frivolous marriages, and I'm willing to respect serious commitments of any type.
Most of the arguments that don't invoke scripture seem to speak against upsetting the fabric of society for the sake of a few outspoken, whimsical firebrands. I'm waiting to hear why achieving my preferred goal would be a bad move. "Serious commitments," in my view, require over-the-age-of-consent status, by the way.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was just an idea mr. angry man and even if homosexuality is a human invention (not pro or con here im just being mr. neutral) this could be a new reaction to human population overload by god/nature/magic or whatever the heck you and everyone else believes in.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW, this has nothing to do with free speech.
Gay marriage and free speech are definitely distinct rights, sure. But earlier you said "civil rights should not be granted to behavior that has a fundimental negative social impact." This is incompatible with the opinion that all people have a right to free speech, since some people (racists, perhaps communists) will have a negative impact on society simply by expressing their views.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize it may not seem right for someone to join in the middle of a conversation but I just want to say that maybe Chris is right, maybe people shouldn't just marry for some odd reason, and it could be a holy agreement, but I really don't want to say to a gay couple or any couple that they can't get married.
Posts: 220 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Formerly Empty: You're reading waaaaaay too much emotion into people's posts. I ain't angry at all...but the guy who first proposed that silly theory...yikes! It's amazing that some people who want the most acceptance are the least likely to allow any one else to have an opinion.
As for the free speech issue, I don't think it's the same. Free speech is a right for all, young and old, regardless of any conditions. The legal rewards of marriage, however, are a privilege. Before marriage was simply a contract before "God, men and these witnesses," but in time the government provided benefits to encourage/discourage certain behavior.
(Obviously what constitutes "appropriate behavior" will never be decided on. It changes every year.)
Homosexuals have the right to do whatever they want. But why should they have access to every privilege, simply because they want them? If they can marry, then why can't I "marry" my brother, so we both save on taxes and can get a loan together? If I can "marry" my brother, then does "marriage" exist at all?
It's like Syndrome on "The Incredibles" says: "And once everyone is super...then no one will be."
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think it's right to assume that the purposes of gay marriages are to get the privelages of being married. Even if all gay marriages are made to get certain privelages, if straight people are allowed to do it, why not homosexuals.
Posts: 220 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the free speech issue, I don't think it's the same. Free speech is a right for all, young and old, regardless of any conditions. The legal rewards of marriage, however, are a privilege.
If that's how you see it, then I understand why you have the opinion that you do. I tend to think that the opportunity to join with someone else to form a household is a pretty fundamental right, rather than a privilege. Or (a weaker claim) that we have a right to lifestyle choice which makes it wrong for the government to use something like marriage to "encourage" one sexual orientation over another.
quote:It's like Syndrome on "The Incredibles" says: "And once everyone is super...then no one will be."
A line that well-nigh ruined an otherwise wonderful movie. The things you have don't become any more special just because the guy down the street lacks them.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pretty silly, obviously, but if we believe there is an intrinsic harm in it, then YES, we have a right to oppose it."
Oh, absolutely. Oppose away. But as in the case of roleplaying, you're silly to oppose it, and we're right to oppose your opposition. I also submit -- and I think you'll agree -- that marriage is a fundamentally more important "right" than the right to play roleplaying games, and bans of marriage should consequently be based on considerably more obvious proofs of harm.
Let's face it: what you're afraid of is that society will say it's okay for homosexuals to live together in loving relationships. I, on the other hand, say that this could only be a good thing.
posted
Chris, the point you brought in about giving homosexuals something positive to strive for is an excellent one. I've got some initial thoughts about it that aren't fully-formed yet, but I wanted to toss them out here ... (So people who disagree with me, please be gentle. I'm still working this out )
I think that a similar strategy is working very well right now in my own Mormon community. Successful, eternal marriage and family is held up as THE ultimate aspiration for LDS youth, and I think as a result, we not only have more stable families than some other communities, but we also have young people with a stronger sense of positive ambition. Instead of adolescence and early adulthood being a directionless void for Mormon kids, it is a time of training and maturation with a specific, positive, common end goal in mind.
It is much easier to make positive, mature choices if your entire society is built around promoting such choices.
Within the Mormon community, however, support for gay marriage can never work quite the same way. Our focus on traditional marriage is supported and fueled by our belief that gender, marriage, and family in this world are reflections of a larger eternal truth. By engaging in eternal marriage and family now, we are preparing for what we will find in the afterlife.
But as we understand it right now, homosexual desire and marriage is a phenomenon of mortality, and doesn't have an eternal analogy. It would feel disingenuous and wrong for a Mormon to promote a form of marriage within his community that lacks that eternal potential. If an individual does have a choice in this matter, then there is a clear right choice to make, and so our society strongly promotes that choice.
Outside the Mormon community, we have a different situation. Mormons don't try to prohibit other people from drinking coffee, or force them to devote ten percent of their income to the work of God. Those are choices that we make as a result of our faith, and we try not to enforce such things on others. So what about marriage? Are we somehow concerned that a change on the national scale will affect Mormons' own decisions within the faith?
Personally, I think that members of my religious community will be a bit more insulated than most others against changes in the larger society. We already do a rather good job of creating a sense that we're unique, and that we do things our own way, no matter what anybody says.
But still, there will be some effect. While we were slow to catch up, our divorce rate is now pretty much equal to that of the rest of America, despite the fact that we believe marriage to be binding and eternal. With that in mind, it can be difficult to justify supporting a policy that could encourage some Mormons to shun eternal marriage in favor of an alternative. Much of the strength of our community and our youth comes from our attitudes about eternal marriage and family. Were that attitude to slip much further than it already has, we could lose much of what makes our society so unique and successful.
If homosexual marriage emerges as a well-promoted and attractive alternative to traditional marriage, that will probably offer a positive boon to homosexuals. But it will also mean that as all kids are growing up and thinking about their future, every kid will have to think, "Am I gay? I don't know. When I hit puberty, will I like boys or girls? Am I going to marry a member of the opposite gender and have my own kids? Marry the same gender and adopt?" As adolescence hits, every feeling has to be weighed. "I got a little turned on by that sexy scene in that movie. Was I turned on by the guy or the girl? I like that picture of a half-naked person of my own gender. Does that mean I'm gay?"
Right now, our society offers a clear set of future expectations that promote positive ambition for most of the population. Grow up, get married, have kids. People expect it, and subcultures (like my own) that promote it have a lot of success with it. Standards and expectations like these make choices — particularly positive choices — much easier to make.
Meanwhile, those individuals who feel very strongly that these expectations are wrong for them are free separate themselves from those expectations and go and do something else. That transition can be very difficult, depending on an individual's circumstances, but we are moving much closer to general tolerance and understanding of choices that diverge from the majority's model.
If, rather than having a single primary model with several possible divergences that cater to some individuals' needs, we switch to a system of multiple competing models that every individual needs to compare and consider, the institution of marriage loses some of its motivational power. Instead of being a standard and an expectation for most of the population, it becomes a toss-up question.
If we create an institution that the homosexual minority can use to promote positive ambition among homosexuals, that is awesome. Civil unions, full legal protections, etc — none of that will get any argument from me.
But I don't think that our current model, in which most people grow up unthinkingly assuming they will be heterosexual, and looking forward to eventual marriage and family, while some individuals discover that they feel different and end up deciding to find an alternative ... I don't think that this is a bad thing, or that it needs to change. I think it really is okay to have a "mainstream" culture with "mainstream" expectations, as long as members of that mainstream are taught to respect and tolerate choices that deviate from the mainstream.
I personally am quite proud that I belong to a unique minority religion. It makes me distinctive, and helps give me an identity. I don't need Mormonism to be some kind of officially-recognized and -promoted national institution. In fact, that would kind of take the fun out of it.
Similarly, I don't think that gay marriage needs to be made a mainstream institution. Should homosexuals be treated as well as everyone else? Absolutely. Should the institutions and needs of the gay subculture (life partners, civil unions) be respected and given credence by businesses and by our government? I think they should, even though they don't fit with my own culture and beliefs, or the beliefs of the majority religion of the country.
However, I think that it should be okay for homosexuality and homosexual unions to remain an alternative choice in our culture, rather than becoming part of (and changing the nature of) the mainstream institution. While traditional marriage has suffered some pretty severe blows in recent decades, it still maintains its power for a lot of people, and is starting to make a comeback. It is a tool that we can use to promote a clear positive ambition among mainstream kids, and I think it could be a mistake to turn such a strong, motivating expectation into yet another wide-open choice for immature kids to try to make with little guidance.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
