posted
Can anyone shed light on the above subject - a former fan raised my curiosity on another website this afternoon..?
Posts: 1 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He believes, consistently with his faith, that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that it is harmful to society, and should therefore be discouraged. He has expressed that it is not unique among sinful or harmful actions, and that homosexual individuals should be treated with respect for their humanity and compassion for their difficult temptation to overcome. He has expressed disagreement with those who feel that the movement for gay rights is analogous to the Civil Rights movement.
Welcome to Hatrack, Brendan.
If you click on the search button (below the "new topic" button above, and search for homosexuality on the OSC side of the forum, you will find our previous discussions on the topic. They are typically contentious, and they typically result in hurt feelings on both sides, which may explain the war weary reaction you may get for raising the topic. If you google "orson scott card" and homosexuality, you will find, among other things, articles Card has written detailing his views on the topic.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can also search for the word "homosexual" and filter for username "Orson Scott Card", if you don't have time to read 500 posts in any given thread. This is a real suggestion. Some people don't realize he actually posts here.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to add, that as a member of Orson Scott Cards religion we share similar beliefs. OSC has on many instances been labeled a homophobe and this always makes me mad.
OSC is not afraid of homosexuals. He does not hate homosexuals. Nor do I. No more than I hate anyone else who makes choices that I disagree with. I disagree with the choice, but I might very well love the person. OSC has had homosexual characters in his books and portrays them quite fairly.
Icarus and pooka are right though. Doing what they suggest is the best way to answer your question.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raz, the possessive is a perfectly normal, legitimate way to refer to the religion that an individual adheres to.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a Christian (Nondenominational) All I can say is if someone else holds to the christian beliefs the Book of Romans says thier opinions on Homosexuallity.
However let us not forget The Books of John, Luke and Mathew on how to talk and be with all people.
A sin is a sin is a sin We are all guilty of sin so if homosexuality is a sin then is it any different from stealing or disrespect to our parents?
I wish you well on your path Brendan. I hope you find the clear way with low hills. Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a practicing mormon myself, I should add to this disucssion that I feel the same way about extramarital sex as about homosexuality. In some ways, it is a greater danger to society than homosexual sex. I don't hate those who practice it, but I am deeply convinced it is wrong, sinful, and destructive. There are ever so many condemnations of extramarital heterosexual sex in the bible. My own opinion is that the Christian churches of the day are winking at this, not facing it.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Razputin - thank you for pointing out my phrasing mistake. Of course I do not consider OSC the leader of my church.
I also highly agree with Lynn. Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong.
I also want to clarify that in my previous post I said that I "disagree with the choice but love the person." This is not to say that I believe attraction to someone of the same gender is a choice. I don't mean to minimize those feelings because they are real. Acting on them, however, is a choice.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong"
Agreed, but if homosexual marriages are legalized (as they are in some states) then is it no longer wrong for them to do their thing?
Here's an argument that is often made for homosexuality: "It isn't a choice; because who would choose something that hard?"
So let's call it a compulsion. Guess what else is a compulsion? Rape, pedophilia, kleptomania, and for some people, murder. Now for these people, they either give in to their compulsion, or they resist it. But how about regular people, like myself? I have a compulsion to lie when it is beneficial to me; to cheat at cards when the opportunity presents itself; and sometimes, to just give up on life. Simply dealing with life is hard enough, but to resist those everyday sorts of temptations is virtue.
Obviously, my argument hinges on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. If it is not, well, do we allow judges to decide what is right or wrong, or do we allow democratic processes? I ask that because, guaranteed, if a law passes, supported by a majority, explicitly restricting homosexuality in any capacity, it will be declared unconstitutional. It hasn't happened in regards to marriage yet, but barring an actual amendment to the constitution detailing such a restriction, it will.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not already discussed with Brendan. He has a right to a civil discussion on a topic that he feels strongly about. You don't have to participate, RunningBear.
Brendan, welcome. If you ever get a chance to chat with OSC here, you'll find that contrary to popular rumors in the gay community, he's a very accepting, kind man. He may not feel that homosexuality is "okay," but he certainly does not hate gay people - or even dislike them, as far as I can tell from his previous writings on the topic. And as has been pointed out already, he has written gay characters into his books and stories that are very well dealt with.
Most Mormons don't feel that homosexuality is anything but a sin, but most Mormons are also very loving folks, even to those they perceive to be sinners.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying that, but reading through the multi-page discussion may give him information faster. sorry, I got frustrated.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Any type of sex outside of marriage is wrong"
Agreed, but if homosexual marriages are legalized (as they are in some states) then is it no longer wrong for them to do their thing?
Not with LDS beliefs - it would remain a sin. Sin is dictated by God and his commandments, not by man creating or destroying laws. Only God can tell us that homosexual sex is no longer a sin, and until or unless he does, it will remain that way according to our beliefs.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortion is legal, but still considered wrong by the church. No fault divorce is legal, but still considered wrong. Alcohol, Tobacco, Chocolate desserts with dangerous names, the list goes on. But I believe in a policy of hating the sin but loving the person. It's what I try for, anyway.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Abortion is legal, but still considered wrong by the church. No fault divorce is legal, but still considered wrong. Alcohol, Tobacco, Chocolate desserts with dangerous names, the list goes on. But I believe in a policy of hating the sin but loving the person. It's what I try for, anyway.
Pooka, I'm curious. Sorry this goes way off topic, but it's convenient to slip it in here. When I was LDS, I was also a vegetarian. I was trying to live by the very sensible rules set out in the Scriptures.
I wonder why so few LDS families choose to go vegetarian. It's as clear as crystal what the Lord has to say about eating meat:
"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." -D&C 89:12-13
...these verses appear just a couple of verses after those admonishing the use of alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" (commonly taken to be coffee).
When I had the Dicsussions prior to being baptized, the importance of not using alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco was set out for me, but there, staring me in the face, were two very clear verses about not eating any meat unless you HAD to. Not looking at animals as a constant source of food, but rather a source to be used only in times of need. I asked the missionaries about it, but they didn't have much to say on the topic.
So, I chose to live a largely vegetarian life, because it seemed pretty clear to me that God doesn't want us to just chow down on animals all the time.
I'm just curious as to whether other Mormons are/were vegetarians because of this verse, or not. If not, what causes you to interpret the verses about strong drinks and tobacco as something to follow, but not the verse about using animals' flesh only in times of need?
Sorry for the thread hijack! I'll move this to a new thread if you guys want me to.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am a Christian (Nondenominational) All I can say is if someone else holds to the christian beliefs the Book of Romans says thier opinions on Homosexuallity.
This is not necessarily true. The evidence is pretty strong that that particular passage was retranslated in the 13th century to refer to homosexuals. Prior to that, in its original meaning, it was generally considered to be referring to pederasty.
What most of the people here know about OSC's stance on hmosexuality come from what he's written on it. You can find that here and here.
There's also an interview with a highly biased and irresponsible journalist from Salon, which you can find here
Some quotes:
quote: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
quote: And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
quote: So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
quote: The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
quote:"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."
posted
Libbie, I also have wondered about this. When I have asked other members about it they just say that as long as things are done in moderation it's not a problem. But I commend you for your choice. D&C is meant to be instruction on how to keep our bodies healthy and I agree that eating a mainly plant-based diet is what will keep our bodies most healthy. My sister is a Vegan (not because of the cruelty to animals issue, but because she believes her body is more healthy without animal proteins).
The topic of meat-eating is rarely, if ever, addressed within LDS meetings. You present a good point.
I think the reason issues of strong drink and tobacco are so much focused upon is because our church leaders have given us specific instruction on how to interpret these.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're right, DaisyMae. I wonder if the meat-eating stuff will ever be addressed in the future? Interesting!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
There's also an interview with a highly biased and irresponsible journalist from Salon, which you can find here
Wow. Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to. That being said, I am ASTOUNDED at the irresponsibility and clear personal agenda displayed in that interview (by the interviewer, not by Mr. Card). I can't believe anybody would let a piece like that be published. Doesn't this woman have an EDITOR? I know Salon's big thing is being edgy, but that was downright ridiculous. Twisting words all over the place. What a jerk. I'd call her other things, but I'll try to keep this thread family-friendly.
Did she think that while she was attempting to paint Card in a certain light, she wouldn't also be painting herself in another? Bad, bad, horrible, bad journalism. Even for an editorial piece.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to.
I don't find that to be a minority opinion here at all; my impression is that both sides of that issue are fairly well represented.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I also want to add that just because there hasn't been a large outcry at some of the things said here, it shouldn't be assumed that everyone here agrees with them. This conversation has been had before, and as someone mentioned, feelings have been hurt, and people have gotten very angry. I don't want to be a part of that again.
Edit: ...even though I'm just a newb and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I don't find that to be a minority opinion here at all; my impression is that both sides of that issue are fairly well represented.
I think many straight people who do feel Gays should be allowed to marry, just don't care enough to be vocal about it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite the fact that I think the woman in that article is a blithering idiot...I still can't help but think she made a solid point or two against what Card said.
When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?
And I'll bet most homosexuals do want to get out of the shadow of the homosexual community, and want to live normal lives, but they can't very well do that with constant reminders of how unwanted they are can they? Don't serve in the military, don't shove your lifestyle in my face, don't get married, don't adopt kids, you're fired, etc. etc. Maybe if society was more accepting, they wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in what could be considered a damaging homosexual community.
As for marriage, I don't think religious groups should be forced to marry a homosexual couple, and I believe the constitution protects religious groups from being forced to do so. But our ideas of marriage, despite what some might say, HAVE changed over the last couple hundred years. Twelve years olds don't get married anymore, parents, last I checked, can't forcibly marry off their children for a price to another family, and interracial marriage is widely accepted.
Religion can define marriage all it wants, but we live with a secular government that has a duty to protect the rights, and guarantee the rights of the non-religious and religious alike. If someone else wants a civil union for them and their partner, it doesn't affect me, regardless of if I'm married or not, and I don't understand how Card can feel it affects him, but then the deeper issue is I don't understand why homosexuality is considered so dangerous to families and society in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a lot of people who are against homosexuality understand a lot about it... Not to sound rude, but this seems to be the case to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, I'm in the minority here on Hatrack in that I think gay rights ARE as important as civil rights, and I'm all in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to.
I don't find that to be a minority opinion here at all; my impression is that both sides of that issue are fairly well represented.
Ahh, okay. I think the people who feel differently from me tend to be more vocal...or faster to respond to related threads.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pooka, I'm curious. Sorry this goes way off topic, but it's convenient to slip it in here. When I was LDS, I was also a vegetarian. I was trying to live by the very sensible rules set out in the Scriptures.
I wonder why so few LDS families choose to go vegetarian. It's as clear as crystal what the Lord has to say about eating meat:
"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." -D&C 89:12-13
...these verses appear just a couple of verses after those admonishing the use of alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" (commonly taken to be coffee).
Libbie, I think your interpretation of these scriptures is quite correct. Mormons should not be eating meat, according to Doctrine, or should be eating it sparsely, or should only be eating it during "lean" times. For good health, and a variety of other reasons.
This is something I used to talk about frequently, when I was LDS.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems pretty presumptious for someone who is not LDS to declare what Mormons should or should not be doing doctrinally.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Does an ex-member know less about scriptures and doctrine than a current member, necessarily? For that matter, what's to prevent someone of a totally different religion or denomination from correctly interpretting the LDS scriptures?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not a matter of doctrine. Ther is not clear-cut doctring on this matter.
I wouldn't have said "boo" if TL had said "That's the way I interpret that scripture", "That is what I think is true", or "That's what I believed back when I did belive".
But no, TL said "That is what those people should be doing".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see your point. My issue with your post was that you seemed to take offense not to what was said as much as who said it (i.e., non-Mormon).
I just don't see why that should have any bearing, considering the person has done their homework on the subject. In other words, if you (hypothetically) left the church tomorrow, I wouldn't think that would make you any less knowledgeable about its teachings.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's pretty presumptuous for any outsider to say the proper way to be X.
It's like me trying to say what is proper way to be a woman, European, or divorcee, especially when what I say is in conflict with the generally accepted manner of being a woman, European, or divorcee.
Again, this isn't about teachings -- this is about what people should do. If TL has said "these are the teachings on this subject" I wouldn't have said boo unless something was incorrect.
There's a big difference between saying "We should do this" and "You should do this" or "They should do this".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL and I may be outsiders NOW, but at the time we were pondering this particular scripture, we weren't.
And it does seem pretty darn clear-cut. I mean, how can anybody argue that "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" isn't absolutely understandable wording? Seems pretty clear-cut doctrine, honestly. Certainly a lot clearer than whether D&C 89:9 refers to coffee or not.
If you used to be European or a divorcee, but aren't now, I'd find your comments on related topics perfectly valid, myself.
Present outsiders weren't necessarily always outsiders. I think it's presumptuous to assume that those who aren't members of your faith any longer can't possibly have anything intelligent to say about it.
TL, thanks for your comments on it. It's good to know I wasn't the only one who interpreted that scripture that way.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's presumptuous to assume that those who aren't members of your faith any longer can't possibly have anything intelligent to say about it.
If anybody had said that, I agree that it would have been presumptuous.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was vegetarian for a few years, and felt pretty good about it. When I got married, my wife didn't want to live that way, and I supported her. She was willing to prepare most of the meals. I prepared vegetarian meals and she prepared meaty meals. She liked my meals but thought it was a pain in the butt to work that hard to have food when you could cook a burger and eat it in no time at all.
So when I eat meat, I say to the Lord, "If I could, I would be vegetarian. Please forgive me." But since my primary commitment is to accept my wife as she is, and not ask for changes, it wouldn't be prudent for me to whine about her food.
I don't mind ex-lds people giving me advice. I was never homosexual, and I give them advice. ("Don't do it. Wouldn't be prudent.") They probably don't listen to me any more than I listen to ex-mormons advising me!
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ONE MORE thing . . . Lyrhawn said "When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?"
Yes, excellent point.
Within the LDS community, a woman or man who refuses to marry when presented with an attractive opportunity is sinful. I would never judge anyone because I cannot know their circumstances. But had I refused to marry because I thought being single was so neat and lacking in restraints, I would have been accountable to God for misusing my time on earth. I would have wasted my life.
To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.
That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a minor deal, really, if any at all. As always, I admire your willingness to reexamine your own motivations.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: ONE MORE thing . . . Lyrhawn said "When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?"
Yes, excellent point.
Within the LDS community, a woman or man who refuses to marry when presented with an attractive opportunity is sinful. I would never judge anyone because I cannot know their circumstances. But had I refused to marry because I thought being single was so neat and lacking in restraints, I would have been accountable to God for misusing my time on earth. I would have wasted my life.
To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.
That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.
Do Mormons support any sort of legislation that involves deterrent punishments to women who refuse to take a husband? or a man to take a wife? of couples who don't have children?
Heh, I don't believe Conservatives will outbreed, for lack of a better word, Liberals. There's plenty of religious liberals out there, and times they are a changing. Plus your assumption is based on the premise that the children of Conservatives always follow their parents' political leanings. I know of no widespread two child ideal for Liberals, it's not something I see defined by a person's politics, there's too many other things in play.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: ONE MORE thing . . . Lyrhawn said "When he talks about homosexuals going against the biological mainstream, don't single women who choose not to marry do the same thing? I've read several articles from Time and Newsweek in recent weeks that more and more, professional women are choosing not to marry, and not to have kids. Aren't they making a conscious choice to defy the biological mainstream?"
Yes, excellent point.
Within the LDS community, a woman or man who refuses to marry when presented with an attractive opportunity is sinful. I would never judge anyone because I cannot know their circumstances. But had I refused to marry because I thought being single was so neat and lacking in restraints, I would have been accountable to God for misusing my time on earth. I would have wasted my life.
To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.
That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.
I would object to these points. The MSM reports on the reality of today, that people are having fewer children. I have never read it was preferable; in fact I've read the fact that in many areas it appears that it is difficult to raise more than a couple children, and how some women don't mind, and others are frustrated.
As for your simplistic view of how two ideologies perceive people, I could just as easily say that conservatives see people only as means, and liberals see them as ends in-and-of-themselves. Then perhaps I'd cast aspersions and draw silly conclusions from this, but I won't, and don't. I don't think it's that simple. I don't think it's true as a stereotype at all.
Honestly I think most people, most of the time, don't think very abstractly about people at all, myself included.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
