quote:If this is the concern, I'm all for removing the church's involvement in state recognized marriage all together. If people want a church-recognized marriage, they can be married in a church, but isn't legal marriage something that can be done separately by a justice of the peace?
And you wonder why people have concern about this issue?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Whoa there" is hardly more rude than blatantly calling somebody self-centered.
I just didn't want to lumped in with a with a particular group. It was simply a response to your initial reply that had quite an aggressive tone IMO.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
I feel rather weird that the idea actually makes me feel a little squeamish.
I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage. But retroactively saying "you're not married in the eyes of the state, you're civil-unioned" makes me uncomfortable. (And the first time someone corrected me when I said "We've been married for ten years" with "You mean, you've been in civil union for ten years, please," I'd probably want to hurt them. And yes, I know that marriage would continue to exist as a religious ceremony, and that scenario isn't likely, but people have a weird way of deciding they're being slighted by quirks of language.)
*Sigh* I guess if that's what it took to bring a resolution to the current, unfair situation, I'd accept it, but I'd have qualms.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People will still call it married if they want to and people that argue with them will be treated the same way as someone that says "you're not black, your an African American".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage.
Hmmm... I didn't see this implied in his articles. Can you show where he said that homosexual marriage degrades his own marriage?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage.
Hmmm... I didn't see this implied in his articles. Can you show where he said that homosexual marriage degrades his own marriage?
*blink*
He's said something like that in several articles. I don't even want to look for them, but that was the main idea of them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's said pretty explicitly that he believes gay marriage is damaging to the institution of marriage (although I'm paraphrasing it much more nicely) -- it is your contention that he's actually speaking about a building somewhere where the Institute of Marriage is housed?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't even want to look for them, but that was the main idea of them.
The main idea was that homosexual marriage degraded his marriage to his wife?
Are you sure?
"So if my [gay] 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.
quote:"So if my [gay] 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..."
It's interesting, because OSC first says that the gay relationships have an identity that cannot be affected by the courts. But - OSC's marriage apparently has a status that can be stolen, or damaged.
At first glance it looked like OSC was claiming that his marriage could be affected in a way that a homosexual relationship could not be affected. However, he's actually talking about two different things: What the homosexual relationship is, and the status of his marriage. He's *not* talking about the relationship being damaged, but the status of the relationship in society.
It lends an interesting character to the argument - inviting comparison to the exclusive status whites had in society prior to the late 20th century, or the exclusive enfranchisement of men a few decades before that. (I'm pretty sure those traditions were touted by some to be central to the success/stability of American society at the time, and that changing them would be to risk disaster.)
I also was struck by his assertion that his right to have a "marriage" was well-earned. By whom? I'm not sure I understand how this right was earned exclusively by heterosexual couples. Surely he doesn't mean that he and his wife personally earned the right to have a marriage, in some way that people with a committed homosexual relationship can not. (?) The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
I also think it'd be nice to go ahead and take the state out of "marriage" altogether, and have the state perform civil unions between any two consenting adults. However, I think OSC and others would still perceive that as a loss of status: after all, they'd be losing the exclusive governmental sanction of THEIR form of marriage. So it's not going to be an easy solution.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the explanation. I don't believe that is what Card is saying, but I understand why you do. I think it's closer to what scifibum says here:
quote: He's *not* talking about the relationship being damaged, but the status of the relationship in society.
I don't think that Card is explicitly stating that his marriage is damaged or weakened by SSM.
quote: I'm not sure I understand how this right was earned exclusively by heterosexual couples.
He explains his reasoning well enough in "Marriage is Hard to Do," and "Civilization is Rooted in Reproductive Society."
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nick: "Whoa there" is hardly more rude than blatantly calling somebody self-centered.
I just didn't want to lumped in with a with a particular group. It was simply a response to your initial reply that had quite an aggressive tone IMO.
See, if I was going to blatantly call you self centered I would blatantly say: "you are self-centered." So lets just dispense with it, ok? Since you're not one of those people, and we both know it, there's nothing to worry about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
I'm confused about your position Dag. What about my suggestion was likely to concern people... or are you simply pointing out that we share a position that is of concern to people? Was there something in my proposal that went to far to be acceptable?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
I think it does. Especially since... well. Every man and woman is different. Individuals. I think gay relationships are probably a LOT harder than straight relationships on some levels.
This is because sometimes family and society doesn't approve and is harsh.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
In the previous paragraph:
"Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men."
I think it's fairly clear that he is claiming that it's easier for people of the same sex to get along than people of the opposite sex.
The extrapolation that this might mean homosexual couples have it easier (in the relationship department) than opposite sex couples was only my speculation on OSC's reasoning. I wasn't making the assertion but rather speculating that OSC might hold such a belief.
I'm in total agreement that marriage is hard to do, but I would say that the hard part is making another individual such a close and integral part of one's daily life, finances, and decision making process - and those challenges have little to do with gender, or sex*. I would have at least as hard a time setting up a marriage-like arrangement with a male buddy of mine as I have had being married to my wife.
*there's the major challenge of monogamy, but that is presumably a precondition of most same sex marriages.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
In the previous paragraph:
"Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men."
I think it's fairly clear that he is claiming that it's easier for people of the same sex to get along than people of the opposite sex.
Is Card asserting that gay men have the same social/biological imperatives as straight men?
Gay men and women "from childhood" on, usually (not always) exhibit childhood gender nonconforming behavior, not to mention the almost universal feeling of "being different from other boys/girls." This in turn relates to the studies showing gay men's brains are wired differently from straight men.
Some theories do suggest that since the onus of reproduction and childrearing doesn't exist, gay men and women have more time to focus their energies on learning, creating, and sharing ala Da Vinci, Walt Whitman, etc.
Whether it's easier or not has no bearing on the validity of the union other than "hmph, they have it easier."
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatrack is a rational community. Since my characterization does not describe comments on Hatrack, I think it should be obvious I was not speaking of Hatrack. I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
We have a thick file-folder of death threats, curses, the most vile and scurrilous condemnations - and all because I made accurate statements about the social foundations of marriage and what is known, scientifically, about homosexuality (which isn't much). On other forums the poison and hate and vitriol make it obvious that civilized discussion is simply not possible with these people.
But Hatrack is a community where we DO remain civil. So it's puzzling that Tom would assume I spoke about anything going on HERE.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since my characterization does not describe comments on Hatrack, I think it should be obvious I was not speaking of Hatrack. I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
See, that's exactly the problem. When you make generalizations like these, it's not always clear which group you're talking about. For example, your version of "us" includes only those people who like to disagree with everything you say. That would not be what I meant by "us," of course.
quote:So it's puzzling that Tom would assume I spoke about anything going on HERE.
For my part, I think it's puzzling that you don't speak about anything going on here, and prefer to address the weakest and most vile arguments of the weakest, vilest people who oppose your position as if those were the only opposition. You made the argument in Empire that it was only by recognizing the essential worthiness of the opposition's positions that reasonable compromises could be reached; the alternative is -- and I agree with this -- ultimately demonization, alienation and open hostility.
There is a whole community here of people who've disagreed with you in rational, sensible ways, and have made rational, sensible arguments against many of your points. You have never, in all the years I've been reading your articles, acknowledged that these arguments exist, or even that it's possible to hold opinions similar to the -- apparently quite small -- groups you choose to insult without sharing the traits of those groups.
And then you complain about how no one ever presents you with rational, sensible arguments.
In other words, too often it seems to me that you're shooting fish in a barrel while complaining that fish are just too easy to shoot. It's not only insulting to the fish; over the long run, you train yourself only to shoot at barrels.
This feels like Unmaking to me. Why not acknowledge the stronger arguments, instead of picking off the low-hanging fruit? Why not recognize that people are capable of having civil disagreements on this and other issues, instead of implying otherwise? It would make a persuasive case more difficult, sure, but it would also make that case stronger.
--------
I came back to this post to say something else. I don't doubt that people have often contacted you and your family to say vile things about and to you. I'm sorry that's happened. You don't deserve it. (In fact, you'll recall I have repeatedly defended you from charges of bigotry and homophobia both here and elsewhere.) But I don't think you do yourself any favors by saying that it's "all because <you> made accurate statements..."
I know you're not deaf to your tone, and that you know tone matters. It's possible to observe -- for example -- that black men are disproportionately arrested for violent crimes in ways that are inoffensive, offensive to black men, and offensive to the establishment; merely wording the same statement differently, or presenting different supporting examples, you can turn your argument into an insult to or defense of black youth. Leaving aside the question of whether everything you've said is accurate, then, it's difficult to ignore that you've frequently chosen to write your essays in a tone that's pitched to excite both extremes -- and, in particular, that implies the other side of the argument is both intellectually dishonest and ultimately selfishly vapid.
This makes people angry. I know at least two people who have refused to read anything you've written since you accused homosexual couples of "playing house." They never sent you any angry email or slandered you across the Internet, but they decided that they weren't interested in paying for your work until you someday apologized for an essay that, in their opinion, disrespected their long-term relationships. You've said in a recent article that you believe same-sex marriage threatens the foundations of something you find sacred; you, by implying that my friends' long-term, committed relationships were just toy marriages, insulted the bedrock of their lives in precisely the same way.
These friends of mine are people with whom civilized conversation is possible. But they won't read your stuff and won't come to Hatrack because they don't think civilized conversation is possible with you, based on how you've presented yourself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well, TD, I observed that OSC is a bigot because his position is against Church's historical support for equal protection under the law, for separation of moral and civil law, and regardless of how often Alma had asked or if he had lived today, I think I have faith in this country that Mosiah will still rightly tell him No. OSC's position is bigotted and hypocritical in my opinion because he is capable of assessing those background facts better than the average bear and chooses to twist them according to the churches' and (The Church's) "Alma" position today, which = "Give unequal protection according to our moral law!"
Alma saw the right of it (after Mosiah told him No and God made it clear how to separate) Mosiah was correct, the early church leaders were correct, and OSC chooses otherwise.
posted
I agree with Tom: OSC's entire post is based on the premise that gay marriage is an attack on heterosexual reproductive security. I do not see where this has been shown.
I also note that the experiment has been run in several European countries, where various civil-union-ish arrangements have existed for up to twenty years, without any immediately obvious bad effect.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack, munga, do you mind? It's rare enough that OSC descends to discussion with us mere mortals, without you giving him every excuse to go away again by calling him a bigot. As much as I dislike it, there really are reasons he stays away from this forum, and you're being a textbook example. And grounding your insults in your understanding of Mormon doctrine is not a help, I assure you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, TD, I observed that OSC is a bigot because his position is against Church's historical support for equal protection under the law, for separation of moral and civil law, and regardless of how often Alma had asked or if he had lived today, I think I have faith in this country that Mosiah will still rightly tell him No. OSC's position is bigotted and hypocritical in my opinion because he is capable of assessing those background facts better than the average bear and chooses to twist them according to the churches' and (The Church's) "Alma" position today, which = "Give unequal protection according to our moral law!"
Alma saw the right of it (after Mosiah told him No and God made it clear how to separate) Mosiah was correct, the early church leaders were correct, and OSC chooses otherwise.
posted
To clarify, I think, what Munga is talking about is a passage from the book of Mormon. The setup is that Alma, a prophet, and head of the newly organized church, is confronted with some wicked-doers. He's conflicted with what to do with them-- so he brings them to Mosiah, the king, whose position had previously been responsible for the religious life of his subjects.
Mosiah sends the prisoners back to Alma with little or no explanation-- basically saying, "I judge them not."
Alma does the whole praying and fasting thing, and God then reveals that the most the head of the Church can do with sinners who apparently haven't broken any laws is to disfellowship/excommunicate them from the religious community.
I think this is what Munga is basing his arguments on. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that the government of the Nephites was enormously impacted by their religious beliefs. (One of which was that the "law could have no power over a man for his beliefs" only his actions)
While the Nephite church and state were tentatively separate, the laws were unquestionably influenced to a high degree by the prophets.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:To clarify, I think, what Munga is talking about is a passage from the book of Mormon. The setup is that Alma, a prophet, and head of the newly organized church, is confronted with some wicked-doers. He's conflicted with what to do with them-- so he brings them to Mosiah, the king, whose position had previously been responsible for the religious life of his subjects.
Mosiah sends the prisoners back to Alma with little or no explanation-- basically saying, "I judge them not."
Gee, that sounds awfully familiar.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping Munga would explain her version of what this means to Mormon doctrine. But if she doesn't want to, I guess that's okay.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: This feels like Unmaking to me. Why not acknowledge the stronger arguments, instead of picking off the low-hanging fruit? Why not recognize that people are capable of having civil disagreements on this and other issues, instead of implying otherwise? It would make a persuasive case more difficult, sure, but it would also make that case stronger.
Maybe, like the GOP thinks it's doing, OSC thinks this style of rhetoric, using only the dialectic of total opposition, is somehow going to "save America." I mean, that's what I'd answer if I had to come up with an answer that didn't involve the words "lazy" or "dishonest." There might be other answers, but I'm not sure what they are.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You find yourself with an opportunity to talk to someone you obviously have some pretty passionate opinions about, and whom you obviously disagree with and don't understand... and that's the best you can do? Dont' squawk about a lack of respect shown to you if you can't show respect to others.
Toms post was, in my opinion, very respectful. Might not have been worshipful, but it was at least respectful. You could try learning from that.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could try knowing who you're talking to. I don't expect any respect from OSC, and I don't get any. If you think what I said was disrespectful, that's really ok with me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you did call him lazy and dishonest. That's not really a subjective thing on the disrespectful/respectful scale, Orincoro. So there's really no need to be coy like you're being.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
That's kind of an example, sir.
You decided what Tom meant by "us" - apparently a class of people who enjoy gainsaying your every utterance for fun - and you dismissed him as being part of that class. I know you know what a straw man argument is, so I'm forced to assume that you believe anyone disagreeing with you on this subject is part of that class. Which, frankly, proves the point of the thread.
If anything, the bulk of the complaints about you in these threads has not necessarily been about your arguments - although there's certainly been plenty of that - but about the way you present them. I think it's safe to say that most Hatrackers enjoy and appreciate your work, but for some of us the condescension perceived in some of your essays is hugely disappointing (largely because we enjoy your fiction so much, in fact).
I'm curious: in your opinion, are there any rational arguments for homosexual marriage?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, you did call him lazy and dishonest. That's not really a subjective thing on the disrespectful/respectful scale, Orincoro. So there's really no need to be coy like you're being.
I feel this is a frequent occurrence. If I wished to call OSC lazy and dishonest, I would do so. What I wrote was not that. It was not that for a reason. I wanted to make clear that these were the explanations that leapt to my mind, but they were not the only ones. I clearly said first that it may be that OSC had entirely different motivations for his words, which would mean he was not being lazy, and he was at least trying to be honest, in his way. I acknowledge that possibility- therefore I have not simply called him lazy and dishonest, only pointed out that these would be my explanations if I didn't know there were probably better ones.
Three posts, and what I said was my personal suspicion becomes my accusation. Lovely reading comprehension.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, no, I got the nuance you were typing, Orincoro. I just didn't believe it was sincere.
In my experience, if someone says something repeatedly like, "Now I don't necessarily mean you, but when someone does something like x and y, I think z," eventually the meaning is clear.
But I'll play your game: what do you think of (by your description) the GOP style of rhetoric? You say they believe they're trying to save the country, but what do you think about it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do really believe that they believe that they are saving America. I'd be willing to assign that same motivation to OSC, as I do not know him to be lazy or dishonest in any very purposeful way. For instance, I don't think he lies to get what he wants, not directly.
It's a complicated question because I think the desires represented by the GOP are reactions to an image of "American Life" that is, in great part, a work of wishful fiction. Their wishes to maintain or restore some mode of government or lifestyle that they believe best represents the America that they love is admirable, except for the problem I see, which is that they pursue a goal which is illusory. So I find the rhetoric of the GOP to be rather full of wishful fiction. I see it as spoken from the mouths of people who *want* to be part of the world they describe as "their own," but I think that every person that bases his politics on the idea of that imagined world, the conservative world that works like clockwork, is ignoring some very basic facts about his own life. The need to be "conservative," represents an opposition to reality: the need to put things "the way they should be," when they have never been that way, and refusing at once to either come up with practical solutions for ongoing problems, or to accept the facts of a changing world in which people will be expected to adapt, and not be allowed to stagnate.
Now, I personally think the rhetoric of the democratic party is just a slight bit better. It still has all the same problems- it depends on convincing people, first and foremost, that they have every right and privilege to expect that they can continue always to live the way they do, when the facts suggest that this will never be the case. I would like to see a party that faced the fact of change, rather than simply embracing "change" as its motto, because the kind of "change" Obama is talking about isn't the kind of change that will be forced on people by circumstance, no matter what they do. We need a culture that is more willing to face changing circumstances, and not spending its time sustaining itself in the very short term (ie, by being dependent on foreign oil), while wasting a valuable opportunity to adapt to a new world. This is just how empires die- decadence. And both parties ultimately represent the same position on that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
