posted
Note: If you are offended by homosexual subject matter, please do not read on.
First, hang in there with me while I dispense with personal history that will help explain my viewpoint. When I was 17, I fell in love with a fellow lineman on my Varsity football team. I was, and still consider myself, mostly straight - but couldn't control my feelings. After a year of repeated suicide attempts and continued deepening of my friendship with this guy...I finally confessed. Surprisingly, he felt the same towards me. He had a harder time getting used to us being a couple, he was raised Mormon and his father was a Bishop at the time. I took a gun out of his hands and off his temple twice. Yet, we are still together (it's been three years) and are currently engaged, one of our vows being to keep our relationship non-sexual until marriage. We still are fairly attracted to women (sexually), and don't kiss all that often (read: Im not some gay ho-bag). Still totally committed to, and in love with, each other.
What enabled me to steel myself and gather the internal fortitude that was required to confess my feeling to him, was found in reading Mr. Card's 1979 work Songmaster. So it came as quite a shock when I recently read his essay "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality." While I don't really enjoy, and barely identify, with the supposed "gay community", it seemed that Card viewed homosexuals as slave to some false god of sex. While, being gay (or bisexual) for me simply means being myself. By that I mean that I do not put on false airs and graces (ie - act fabulous, my voice is the same deep octave, etc.) and I treat men the same as I would women (I respect them). I am a person made for committed relationships (my religion and personality are as one on that) and I am not into premarital sex. There are lots of gays and lesbians out there who feel the same. Granted, there definitely is truth behind the promiscuity stereotype that surrounds the gay community, but it is irrefutable that the majority of that comes from the most readily visible homosexuals. Which are the flamboyant, the club goers, and the young. The same could be said of straight men and women. I am college student in 2005, and I see my straight friends getting around just as much as my gay ones. Which does NOT make it right, but it is absurd to think gay premarital sex and straight premarital sex are so different. I am quite a quite faithful in God, not necessarily religious (personally, I think at God resides in us and we can all pray and be faithful to him without being affiliated with a church), and believe in waiting.
Also, Mr. Card, to use theater kids as a example of homosexual sex, would be like using college age frat jocks as a example of straight sexual activity. I understand that you are not homophobic, and I am certainly not implying that you carry and hatred for gays, I just would like to invite you to reexamine the issue from a neutral perspective. Additionally, I believe that if God has a issue with my love, or how I chose to love, then that is a issue between us - and not a issue for government or religion to regulate.
Ack, well, regardless - I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Card, for your wonderful writing, your love of your family, and for your political opinions as well. From one would-be Republican to another.
Thanks, Christopher.
PS - I apologize for my horrible and rushed writing, I'm at work and on production, thanks again for hanging with me.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's an important problem you described here: we use to think that the majority of gays and lesbians is just like that: blatant and as it were showing off their homosexuality. Those homosexuals who behave like that claim to fight for equality and acceptation, but it's precisely their behaviour that makes the rest feel shocked, insecure or whatever: and so we tend to transfer those feelings to _all_ gays, whether they are 'showy' or just try to get on with their lives. And it is my belief that after all a great part of gays are, except for their sexual orientation, exactly the same as us. But we don't know it precisely because they are perfectly normal! That's very unjust!
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I must confess, I was expecting far worse from the thread title.
I suspect Card will say something along the lines of he has considered the issue from every possible angle, including possibly some that you are not aware of, just based on his responses past posts that imply otherwise. I don't think you're going to say anything to change him mind on this one, so I'll completely leave alone the topic of your post and say this instead: I too hope you look into some of the other discussions on both sides of the river and stick around! Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm only aquainted with a very limited number of gay people so my views may be slanted but I have seen both sides of the flamboyance issue.
On one hand, my wife's aunt is a lesbian and I feel totally comfortable around her and her partner. They are both a bit older than the other gay people I know and are simply living their lives. They don't make a point to bring their sexuality into every conversation.
On the other hand, my wife has a friend who is a lesbian that is very overtly gay. In every conversation you have with her she makes sure to point out that she is gay or invite you to a gay club. In addition to this, she changes girlfriends on average of every 2 months. My wife tells me that she tells her about intimate details of their relationships. This would make me or I think most reasonable people uncomfortable whether the speaker is gay or straight.
Now that I think of it, I don't really know any overtly gay men so I can't speak to that aspect, but I feel that I would feel comfortable around anyone, gay or straight, as long as they mostly keep their personal lives to themselves. Mannerisms that are consider "gay" dont bother me either. I guess what I mean to say is that it is the "too much information" factor that bothers me.
I just wanted to comment on this one tiny statement at the end of your post:
quote:I believe that if God has a issue with my love, or how I chose to love, then that is a issue between us - and not a issue for government or religion to regulate.
I get why you feel government shouldn't regulate it, but government and religion are two very different entities. The relationship between an individual and God is exactly what religion is all about. Religion attempts to regulate all our behaviors that are (according to that religion) offensive to God. So if God does have a problem with how you choose to love, it is in the nature of "religion" to try to regulate that behavior.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to Icarus - I agree that there a very valid points on _both_ sides of the issue. I, and I'm hardly alone, have had to take long hard looks in the mirror and admit to their faults, contridictions and problems in their lives. Only fair to be balanced, even when you don't want to be. =D
In response to Jenna -
I agree that is one of the main purposes of religion. I grew up in a rather odd religion, a mixture of christianity and judiasm and there was a lot of phrophetic action going on in the 70's and 80's...but I've come to believe and have faith in god, and obey my conscience (surely formed at least in part by religion.) But my paticular religion was intense in the way that every young adult was "given" to a "shepard" (a older member in the body) the then the young adult pretty much had to clear everything by them...etc. This wasn't something I, or my parents, felt was good for me (then or now). I haven't found a religion that felt right since. I live my life according to truths I have found in my life, in God and in the Bible. Now do I think that every moral in the Bible applies to me, or even applies in this era? Nope...
I sputtering, sorry.
Back on track. "So if God does have a problem with how you choose to love, it is in the nature of "religion" to try to regulate that behavior." That is a good point (as Icarus pointed out), however there are many branches of Christianity - and they do not speak as one voice on many subjects (homosexual love being one). If I was living in Iran, a Islamic state, I could be put to death. SO - I have to pray to God for an answer. I believe religion is instrument of men, and it is undeniable that men have exploited (ie Catholic Church, dark age anyone?) countless times. So - if God gave his son for my sins, then perhaps he will give me my answer. Perhaps not. Yet - a full and happy with my boy would be worth it, regardless of whether it is a sin or not.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Topher brings up a good point. Many gays I know personally suffer from some stereotypes: the higher-pitched voice, the femenine characteristics... but many are just normal people who are easily mistakable as straight. In fact, a lot of closeted gays are able to remain closeted for so long because they're very normal by casual glance and contact.
But something else to keep in min is that acting femenine or having a higher-pitched voice and being gay doesn't mean they're flaunting it, and I think a lot of people lose sight of that. Some people's minds naturally lean towards feminine characteristics, or vice versa, no matter whether they're straight or not. I know several straight people who act effeminate, but are solely attracted to women. *shrug* I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't assume that the majority of gays are like the ones most visible.
Please excuse my spelling or grammar mistakes. It's far too late and I'm far too tired to even try correcting any of them. x_x
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to respect Card's view on homosexuality, not so much because I agree with it, but because it is consistent with what drives and inspires me to love so much of his writing. In his writing, family and community are most important.
This is my understanding of Card's take on homosexuality:
Card believes that homosexuality does not promote the procreation of children and therefore, does not promote community.
He is wonderfully open to the mental, philosophical and personal virtues of people who also happen to be gay. In this way, it it obvious that he harbors no attitudinal distaste toward a person based on their sexual preference. On the other hand, he won't encourage or promote anything that encourages people to accept homosexuality.
If community is the most important factor in continuing humanity, and children are the most important building block of community, then Card is probably right. If there are other factors that are more important to humanity than community and children, then Card has yet to be convinced of those other factors.
posted
I have sometimes wondered about homosexuality.
On occasion, I see that the homosexual community is pressing for rights as a separate group. I disagree that homosexuals are seperate and independent as a group that can be identified as deserving special protections. As far as I can see, the homosexual community is made up of hugely diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious characteristics - the same as the general population.
As I see it, the only difference is the manner in which homosexuals claim to engage in sexual stimulation (I say claim because I have never been so engaged or witness to such).
See, I don't even know if it is sex based on traditional methods of carying out the act. What homosexuals do may qualify as sex because the operation of such should-be-private activities includes the stimulation of organs and emotions designed for the sex act.
I think feeling attraction to a linebacker is normal. Even high school boys make friends with high school boys and are likely to profess friendship. Maybe it is like mother and child. Is breast feeding sexual? But mothers tell em there is a really good feeling there. Or children in general. Children were designed to be attractive with their hairless, pudgy bodies and big eyes. Those characteristics are supposed to produce in adults a desire to care for the child, in my opinion. Wanting to process such a relationship through sexual channels, in my humble opinion, is misconduct - child to adult, same gender to same gender.
I can see that people have different ways of viewing the same subject or event. Some guys may appreciate another linebacker because he can beat the other's head in and feel good about it. He may also feel the two have shared interests and create a friendship bond that leads to occasional warm fuzzy feelings. As smaller boys, holding hands or sleeping in the same bed or giving a hug is nothing more than friendship. I think problems arise when people come to believe some act is wrong or even evil. Then - one person can point to the other and say you are not part of my group. Something, I feel, however, would most likely bring an act into question - like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't work.
Historically, there has never been a homosexual society, even if you lived on the isle of Lesbo. Roman's and greeks developed man love to a kind of social party status. Some Native people had a homosexual in their midst to give the boys something to do when the wife was unavailable, but the homosexual never achieved status. Homosexuality has never led to a master race (for biological reasons at least).
Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.
Finally, based on what has been said here, I would side with Card (though I have not read his article).
Posts: 32 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.
Wow. Do you even know why this is staggeringly inaccurate and insulting?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
For a second I thought you were a friend of mine who we call "Topher" short for Christopher. But he lives in canada your in the us. But he alo happens to be bi which is a wierd coincidence.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avery Good Schreibner: Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.
So I take it you are also against the use of condoms and other contraception, then?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems alot of these semantic arguments are precipitated by one person saying: "I am going to give you the definition of moral. There it is. Now, here is what Gays are. You see? Gays are not moral. Period." The next person goes: "Hey there you! Thats not what Moral means!! How dare you sir?"
Well its easy to make all kinds of statments like this when they are only based on the facts presented in a convenient order. This is like writing a book called "The Complete Napolian Biography", and then at the end saying: "Well, based on the facts in this book, its clear that Nepolian was definetly Gay" For all the reader knows, the author did nothing but comb through Nepolian's life and find everything slightly "gay" about him and included it. Then, based on those facts alone, of course the conclusion is evident, and how dare you challenge such a statement.
Basically sexual acts are just about the same, thank you very much. If you really are curious, use your imagination (googling would be a tad too disgusting.) And no, for most men, attraction to another linebacker isn't normal. (Note: we aren't on a team anymore.) The attraction and love I have for him is just like the attraction and love between billions of people on this planet.
As to gay relationships - yes it can be all about sexual gratification. JUST as can hertosexual relationships. However, to say that all gay relationships/marriages are invalid because the option to procreate is not (in the tradtional sense) open to them, is slippery slope. A straight relationship is valid simply because they COULD have children? What about those couples who can't, don't want to or are otherwise inhibited?
With over-population causing huge problems in India and China, one would think NOT having children would be PLUS. So basically, your arguement is fundamentally flawed.
In response to LadyDove -
I would mostly agree with your analysis of Card's feelings on the matter. However, I have to disagree with it as well. Gay couples adopt children often, and raise them to be capable members of society. And according to the studies I've seen, their children typically turn out to be straight.
A homosexual lifestyle exists only in the way that a straight lifestyle exists, as different from individual to individual. And to say that it doesn't value having and raising a kid isn't true at all. Most of my gay and lesbian friends want children, as do I. When I am grown up enough for the responsibility, I hope kids to be the center of my life.
Now...yes, obviously, gay couples can't procreate. Yet the desire to enter into the loop of humanity (which we are already a part, thank you very much) to create a full cycle is as much a part of me as any other human. Can I have a kid with my guy? Nope. But there are many straight couples out there with similar problems. And yet they aren't are villified for being impotent, barren or too old.
Bottom line - homosexuals are part of almost every species of mammals on this planet. And same sex love is present and has been present in every human culture for quite a long time. And that is not because every bird, ape and human all made some conscious choice to committ some immoral act. Rather, homosexuality is a valid part of life. Whether I choose to accept it, supress it or subvert it.
Sorry - its 330 am here. And I have work in 3 hours. Sorry for the errors.
Night all, Topher
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Topher, you make some excellent points. I am very burnt out discussing my views on homosexuality having argued about it for several years. I strongly disagree with OSC's views on it. I respect that he cares about the family and what is best for children and society, but I feel that by attacking homosexuality him and others are over looking the real factors that threaten families like poverty. So many Americans work 2 or more jobs and still cannot make ends meet. This was a problem highlighted in the book Nickled and Dimed. The woman in that book didn't have children, but she lived like a ton of people here who do who get home from working about 12 or 14 hours a day and after that have no time and energy to spend with their children. This sort of thing has a worse impact than gay marriage or gay relationships in general. Gay people have it hard enough in society, rejected by family members and friends, constantly stereotyped without being wrongfully blamed for being a threat to families. To me it is just a political issue, a distraction from the real problems. Though, one has to admit that anyone behaving in a promiscuous and irresponsible fashion is bad for society, but not all gays do that. I think that community should also be about understanding people and supporting them. This does not mean supporting every deviant behavior. Nor does this mean creating a permissive society where men are allowed to leave their wives and children and women leave their families to "find themselves". I believe a strong community is an inclusive community that compassionately understands difference without the use of stereotypes and things like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think establishing getting married as a civil right is going to create a lot of problems we can't anticipate at this time, particularly if in doing so we break open the traditional definition of what a marriage is. Do single women have a civil right to pursue a polygamous relationship with an existing couple?
And where you are not exclusively gay but your soulmate just happens to be the same gender as you, why do you have a civil right for this to be a marriage any more than someone who meets their soul mate 10 years after marrying someone else? The whole concept of marriage exists not to celebrate soulmate-dom, but to keep people in stable relatiionships despite it.
Marriage is not a requirement to participate in American Democracy. It may mean you don't fit in socially the way you would like. I'm biracial, and will never fit in socially the way I would like. Should I try to get laws passed so that people aren't allowed to stare at me, ask if I adopted my children, or ask "What are you, exactly?" But I know the difference between a civil right and social awkwardness.
My position on gay marriage as a civil right is that it would call on the government to protect someone's right to discriminate against the opposite sex. It only needs to be a right in the case of people who have no possibility of a relationship with the opposite sex. I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should I try to get laws passed so that people aren't allowed to stare at me, ask if I adopted my children, or ask "What are you, exactly?" But I know the difference between a civil right and social awkwardness.
Since when is this merely a "social awkwardness"? Are you claiming it's a matter of ettiquette whether or not I can marry another guy? The point is that marriage is a legal contract, and that a segment of the population is being excluded from the ability to make that contract for entirely arbitrary reasons.
quote: I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
Pooka, I respect you because most of what you post on Hatrack seems to be pretty well thought-out and intelligent. But quite frankly, what are you on? This isn't . . . good Lord, I don't even know how to respond to this argument because it's entirely invalid. Yes, it's discriminatory. Everything we do as human beings is in some way discriminatory. But how different is it from you saying "I could never be attracted to you because I hate you with a fiery passion"? You may, for instance, not like racists, and therefore would never be attracted to one. That's another form of discrimination. We all discriminate in choosing a mate based on how we're built, mentally and physically. We may make exceptions, but that's still there.
Having said that: Topher, I found this interesting because I have a rather similar situation in some aspects. You said neither of you are really gay; instead, you're just attracted to women and to each other. I've got a similar weird dynamic I'm trying to work out right now: I'm gay. I'm not attracted romantically or sexually to women in general, and I'm still attracted to men. And yet, I'm in a relationship with a girl. Occasionally there's an exception to a rule, I suppose, but it is more the minority than the majority.
And if anyone's considering using that part of my post as a justification for the "being gay's a choice" argument, please don't. It's not a choice. I don't choose to be attracted to guys. I choose whether or not to act on it. And if I love a guy, I'll be with a guy. And if occasionally the rare woman comes along that I'm attracted to, well. I don't discriminate. If I'm attracted to them, both romantically and sexually, and they to me, then I will pursue the relationship. With either sex.
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Topher isn't talking about exclusive homosexuality anyway. He's talking about "my soulmate happens to be the same sex and I'm not interested in looking further, and the law should enshrine this with marriage." I stand by my opinion, though it does attack all those people who are sure they've never been attracted to someone of the same sex.
I think someone earlier said Card believes having children contributes to community. I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those two statements are hardly mutually exclusive; clearly, the most successful communities are the ones where children are a resource rather than a drain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
Is it possible for people who disagree with this premise to coexist?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I'm responding properly to the original question here, but here goes nothing. I believe that Homsexuallity is not the curse it is made out to be, for one thing homosexuals are equally contributing members of society, the bedroom is not something that the the government should be aloud to control, and can anyone think of a better resource who would be more than willing to adopt many of the orphans in the world (giving them loving homes I might add).
And if my two friends (who have been together for well over twenty years now) are any indication, then any child would be lucky to exepted into a home with two fathers or two mothers, as long as they are loved.
I'm not too far off topic I hope, I got confused on what the topic was about after reading through all the responses. If I messed up then I'm sorry. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have quite a few of my own different responses to different things said, so bear with me
quote: "If community is the most important factor in continuing humanity, and children are the most important building block of community, then Card is probably right."
Community is a tossed around term here. So When I speak of community, let it be known I'm using the term, "Society as a whole; the public."
Reguardless of whether gays contribute a building block (a child) to a community, they are an individual, and provide their own uses. Wasn't Card the one who wrote of the Pequininos community in "Speaker of the Dead" where the elder women were sterile, no longer capable of reproducing? They are part of the community because they contribute something else. They are apart of the tone and identity of a community for reasons beyond reproduction. In other words, the ability to reproduce, though a high and mighty step to the continuation of something, should not be reguarded or valued as the final call as to if someone is illegable to be apart of "the line" or not. A sterile farmer may still toil in the fields all day and give to society.
quote: Speaking of biology, homosexuality is - what - self gratification - for each party. There is no greater purpose. The function of intimacy between men is you make me feel good and I'll make you feel good.
Isn't that what heterosexuality is about as well? Let's take a look.
To me, the body and mind are two seperate things, forced to cooperate and work as one. For refrence, I am a straight adolecent. When I am hungry, my body craves for food, sending my mind the message it needs something to eat. When I'm done eating, my body rewards me with satisfaction for a happy tummy. The same can apply to sex. My body wants to reproduce, further the line. So, in order for that to happen, my body rewards me when I endulge in sexual activity. That is how attraction works, your body rewards you if you find the most attractive. That's why so many people chase after Johnny Depp! For yourself to achieve the chance to pro-create with such a valid mate is cause for greater reward. It's true that with gays, the ultimate goal of producing offspring is impossible, but the inner workings of the body itself are still valid, still work. BUT-It doesn't make the act itself, the love, the strain, the emotion behind it in the person or the person themselves less valid.
quote: "Bottom line - homosexuals are part of almost every species of mammals on this planet. And same sex love is present and has been present in every human culture for quite a long time. And that is not because every bird, ape and human all made some conscious choice to committ some immoral act. Rather, homosexuality is a valid part of life. Whether I choose to accept it, supress it or subvert it."
Extremely well said.
quote: I can't think of anything more discriminatory than saying "I could never be attracted to you because of your race/gender."
Perhaps that is because you value acceptance of race and gender over other values? What about people who would say, "I could never be attracted to you because of your intellegence, your humor, the way you look....ect."
quote: And if anyone's considering using that part of my post as a justification for the "being gay's a choice" argument, please don't. It's not a choice. I don't choose to be attracted to guys. I choose whether or not to act on it.
Please consider what this person has said seriously. If you are one to think that sexuallity is a choice, reconsider. My own uncle was gay, and was driven to his own suicide partically of the fact that he was gay. He made plans to marry a woman, and play the part of mind over matter as best he could. This was all due to the way his body worked, and because our society rejects a choice out of his own hands. Yet that same society is fitting enough to judge him based a religion meant to merely "keep a standard to actions" per-say, based on a book that calls for forgiveness and judgement between the individual and god. Where's the justice in that?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Pooka - actually I am talking about homosexuality. This is because regardless of what I classify myself as I am still considered a homosexual by the world at large.
And marriage may politically be some "governmental stamp of approval" on our relationship. Honestly, though, that's not how I veiw it at all. I DO want equality ... but I just frickin' want to get married too. To have it NOT be a huge issue, trust me the drama of it all is in no way fulfilling.
Additionaly POOKA - your whole arguement is basically flawed. Please tell me how letting to people of the same sex marry is going to bring up the issue of THREE(or more) people marrying? It isn't going to anymore than the current marriage laws do. You are probably adding up "freaky marriage law number 1 leads to freaky marriage law number 2." YES - soon I will want to marriage 4 goats and nine hampsters. Please. I'm sorry for sounding sarcastic and disparaging, but argue logically please.
Black Mage - highly interesting. We should talk more of this.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Topher, what do you think about sexual orientation being a legally protected status? As in, you can't discriminate in housing or employment based on religion, race, age, etc?
Honestly, I don't know much about it, but I know it's up before our state legislature again this year (30 years in a row) and looks like it may very well pass this time (last year it was only defeated by one vote). I'm wondering what you think about this. Do you find that being in a homosexual relationship limits your choices in employment?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well...it's tough. Many employers already have no-discrimination laws on their books (at least in California), and in and around the Los Angeles area most companies would lose quite a bit of business if they did discriminate. I haven't found it the least bit difficult finding employment - but I don't really come off as too..erhm, gay. Some of my friends, though, choose areas to work in (such as Hollywood) that tend to be more liberal than others.
I'm for the measure, but at the same time I don't think that gays/lesbians deserve any <b>special</b> treatment, just a fair rub. So, as long the measure just enforces the rights everyone should already have - then I'm for it. (I don't know the exact extent of the bill.)
Hope that answers your question... back to work for I!
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you on that. Not special treatment, just fairness.
I think it would be wrong not to hire a gay person just because the person hiring is uncomfortable with homosexuality.
However, I think where open homosexuality is in direct conflict with the job or employer's purpose (as with many churches), it is unkind of an openly homosexual person to purposefully challenge that. Like a gay person suing a church because they wouldn't hire them.
I think my ignorance is showing. I think it's wrong to force employers to hire people they find unsuitable for the job based on sexual orientation. But I also think it's wrong to discriminate in cases where sexual orientation just doesn't matter to the job. I don't know how you legislate that.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
DennaJean addressed your original question many posts ago. I thought I might add just a bit.
I believe the main point of the "Hypocrites" title was to shine a light on the idea that because someone has a desire or urge, however strong, that they should therefore act on it.
Morals in and outside of religion seek to "regulate" what urges are appropriate to act on, which aren't, and how to deal with said desires. So to say having a desire makes it okay to act on it is hypocritical--because we could cite simple desire as a legitimizing basis for murder, rape, theft, etc.
For example, single folks with heterosexual urges have just as strong desires for sexual intimacy as those with homosexual urges. For those who believe in the chastity moral, we'd never say, oh, you have this sometimes consuming heterosexual desire, it must be good and natural, go have sex. No, we'd say, sorry, desire and even divine origin is not enough: you must not act on it until married; and for those unlucky enough not to have any hopes of marriage--you still cannot act on it.
Morals regulate the expression of our desires.
Well, what's the source of the moral? Some morals come from sad personal experience, some from observation, others from the community, and some come from those we believe communicate with God. Some have a basis in all of the above. Of course, Card cites all sorts of practical things as the basis for his stance against practicing homosexuality, and we could have a lively discussion about each point. But one strong input he doesn't mention in his articles for wide audiences is that Mormon prophets have simply said God doesn't want us to act on these urges (whatever their source may be).
But even though that moral comes from an authority figure and you could question or deny as a god-given, it doesn't change the nature of morals in general, nor the idea that morality implies that desire can never be the overruling consideration and cause for action.
quote:No, we'd say, sorry, desire and even divine origin is not enough: you must not act on it until married; and for those unlucky enough not to have any hopes of marriage--you still cannot act on it.
Luckily, allowing homosexuals to marry means that it becomes possible for them to have sex while married, thus not violating any chastity taboos. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That IS a valid way to meet the definition of chastity in many codes--just be monogamous. But this code (especially those from the Mormon persuasion) has that dang "marriage is definied..." clause. No end run there Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But this code (especially those from the Mormon persuasion) has that dang "marriage is definied..." clause.
Luckily, though, we're not talking about religious morality. We're talking about legality, which is something else altogether.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I only meant in reference to Topher's original dismay at the article Card wrote which was published in a Mormon forum.
Of course, in this issue there's no clear line, as in many things, between religious and legal morals because so much of our system of law has been motivated by religious thought. Hence, the current battle to define what marriage is.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I believe "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" was published as a Civilization Watch column, here and in Rhino Times.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I shouldn't have gone into the exclusive homosexuality issue. I've sorry for opening that whole can of worms. But insofar as I did, I should have said "I can think of few things" rather than "I can't think of anything."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
To parrellel an idea from another noted Science Fiction author, the difference between being human and animal is the ability to control our instincts, our urges. I cannot argue with the fact that merely having a desire to do something legitimizes it. However, I can say that consensual sex between people in love and in a committed relationship (assuming that all other legal forms are met) is not on par with murder, rape or theft. Or even a negative, or sinful, act.
It can only be assumed that there was divine intent/orgin in men and women having sex - or sexual desire between opposite sexes. I also say there is divine intent in beauty of human choice. Now it is easy to say, well choosing to engage in a same sex relationship or acting on same sex urges is a WRONG choice. A bible scripture or four points to that, it could be argued that is "wrong" based on phsical aspects alone, etc. However, not matter what we may believe in, it is man who says it is wrong.
That said, I personally believe in waiting for marriage. Yet - who knows how my views would change if marriage was 10 years off in my future (or if it never happened.)
If my only desire was to have sex with a guy (or to just have sex with a woman), I would feel I was being immoral. However, my wish to ingnore gender and live as normal (and thus amazing) life with someone isn't sinful in my view. Perhaps if I believed I was rushing into something, or that I had been leaving God out of my descision (I've involved both religion and God)...but that's not the case. Perhaps, though, I am legitimately ignoring the "morals in and outside of religion" that could very well be the case (even though it is unintentional.)
There are branches of Christianity who have been accepting - seeing love for what it is. Rather than seeing desire to have sex with a member of the same sex.
There are worse activities, by far, that are sanctioned in the Bible - but to get into that defeats purpose. I don't want to be pointing figers, or to be too defensive.
Regardless, thanks for your response Mr. Brown
For the record, I have many Mormon friends - and debate with a certain Mormon Bishop on many occassions. Meaning, I respect your beliefs and religion.
posted
If you feel strong about this person, let nothing stand in your way. I truly admire your restraight and discipline and respect too... It's quite cool. I believe more in waiting for the right person who will respect me than waiting for marriage, but sex is definetly something special that people shouldn't be to casual and disrespectful about.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Additionaly POOKA - your whole arguement is basically flawed. Please tell me how letting to people of the same sex marry is going to bring up the issue of THREE(or more) people marrying? It isn't going to anymore than the current marriage laws do. You are probably adding up "freaky marriage law number 1 leads to freaky marriage law number 2." YES - soon I will want to marriage 4 goats and nine hampsters. Please. I'm sorry for sounding sarcastic and disparaging, but argue logically please.
Topher, I don't see how you can disagree with Pooka about this. After all, permitting interracial marriage led directly to this push for same-sex marriage. Break one barrier, and you've broken them all.
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Topher, what do you think about sexual orientation being a legally protected status? As in, you can't discriminate in housing or employment based on religion, race, age, etc?
It passed here in Illinois, and I think it's a really bad idea. But then, I think that laws against discrimination in hiring and housing are wrong period. Including those that take into account religion, race, age, etc.
The government shouldn't be permitted to discriminate, but anyone or anything non-governmental? Why not?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main push for same sex marriage has happened only in the past 7 years or so.
Inter-racial marriage laws have been on the books for a bit longer than that.
Additionaly, where will pologimasts and those who are *really* into beastiality find their support base for such a difficult political move? Or their popular support?
One plus one equals TWO - not nine. Forgive for being peevish about this, but it's not logical. "If you raise tax laws once, whats to stop them from raising them to 99 percent?" "Once they insitute a draft, they always will." "Once a theif always a theif."
Well starLisa - I wonder how you would feel in the very early 20th century when women did not have the right to vote yet.
Additionally. I agree in principal with you about the legally protected status issue. However, I happen to know a young, minority, gay transexual - try finding work or apartment then. Compassion.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry losing my cool there. Got a little riled up. I get what you are saying - I, obviously, just have to disagree. Thanks for responding =D
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I realize that there's more to this than sexuality. However, if it were strictly the intimacy of committed friendship there would be no issue, right?
The thing about this issue that has to be highlighted (although sometimes not very helpful to people having to deal with it) is that a big part of this for many individuals is driven by religious authority.
In fact, in the future as more and more studies roll in reporting their findings on the effects in society of same-sex marriages and practicing homosexuality, even IF the majority of those studies were to show a neutral or positive effect (which they didn't, last time I checked; it was more a mixed bag), I do not think that would be sufficient basis for many to change their moral stance on this topic.
Why would this be?
Because studies and perceived benefit to society aren't the only or even main sources of many moral tenets. The argument by those who trust in religious authority would simply be that humans cannot see all ends and if God says not to do something, there must be a good reason why, even if we can't see it right now. Moral, in this sense, is defined by what God says to do or not do. Practice polygamy, He says. Then it's good. Don't. Then it's not. Kill. Then it's good. Don't. Then it's not.
We can argue about whether certain people do indeed know the mind of God on this subject, but because so many people believe the claims of such authorities (in fact, one of the thing that distinguishes relgions is the answer to who the authorities are), we can't separate them from this issue.
I know someone is going to say we shouldn't allow religious authority to influence public policy, but it has, does, and will happen. I don't know if it is possible not to have that happen. Especially not in this area. I know people arguing against it will bring up numerous stuides and arguments, but in the end, I'm going to assume the basis of a big part of this is religion. In fact, I have a friend in Indiana who argues public policy for his church (different from mine) and he knows that he can't win public debate by citing scripture, but it's that very scripture that motivates him to enter the debate against gay-marriage and adding homosexuality to the list of protected classes. I don't think this is duplicitous. I just think this is the nature of public debate. This means that for the pro-homosexual folks to convince those that are anti, I think they'll have to eventually let those folks hold the view that it's wrong, and stop contesting that. Instead, they should try to shift the debate to some other ground. This is what happened with prohibition, I believe, and abortion.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion and politics are quite inseperably tied together, and probably will be throughout my lifetime. I understand it is idealist of me to wish it otherwiser. However, I do expect adult Americans (when it comes to public policy) to put aside their religious beliefs and look at matters purely logically. Impossible or improbable...yes. From a scientific and psychological stantpoint - homosexuality is merely a valid percentage of the population who are due the same rights as every other American.
Now - God saying to do or not to do something is open to every humans own interpretation according to religion, texts, personal veiws, etc. Some choose to view religion as a guide to their life, some read the Bible accept it all as fact without methaphor or sublty, some choose for religion to be but a helping hand and have believe they a direct venue (person to being) with God. That is all groovy.
Yet the idealist inside of me screams at the injustice of being ruled and regulated by a standard that one doesn't even acknowledge as valid. Oh well, JohnBrown you are correct sirrah, I cannot sway minds who are dead set agaisnt it. To those who are so opposed to the very concept of gay's - then perhaps you will be lead to a different viewpoint if a daughter, son, husband, wife, friend has to go through what I did.
Thanks all for your responses.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
johnbrown, The problem you get with saying that it's okay for people to force their religion on other people is that no one actually believes this. What people believe is that "It's okay for me to force my religion on other people, but not okay for other people to force their religion on me."
When things are framed in this manner, the only recourse people have towards their side of view is the application of force. We've got a whole history filled with the horrors attendent on this way of approaching social conflict resolution. I don't think we should go back to burning Galileo's at the stake and I think that the things that move us away from that, say for example the Enlightenment principles that our country was founded on, are things that we should celebrate and further.
The sides here are extremely unequal. No one is trying to make people be gay. No one is saying that you can not disapprove of people being gay. No one is saying you can't believe in your religion. What they are saying is that you forcing your religious views on other people justified only because you have enough force to do so is not legitimate. In much the same way it's not right for Baptists to enact legal disrimination against say the LDS, it's not right for Christians to legislate their religious prejudices against gay people.
---
quote:I think someone earlier said Card believes having children contributes to community. I think that might be backwards of what he was trying to say, which is that the only reason for community and civilization to exist is to allow a structure in which to bring up children.
Of course, I consider OSC's demeaning and desacralized attitudes towards civilization and marriage to be a much more serious attack on marriage than anything gay people can do. I see viewing marriage in the "Close your eyes and do it for England" manner, where it's something people naturally don't want to do, but have to be tricked or coerced into as a really terrible way to approach one of the most beneficial relationships people can form.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I hope you stick around.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
