Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Withdrawing "Ender in Exile" pre-order due to latest WorldWatch (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Withdrawing "Ender in Exile" pre-order due to latest WorldWatch
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is not a threat. I am not so naive and self-involved to think that OSC is boo-hooing over my decision. I just wanted to make my protest clear, explain why, and perhaps encourage others to act as they see fit in their own lives.

I work at a bookstore and a few days ago I put in a pre-order for "Ender in Exile." I could have read it on my lunch break or even checked it out in order to read at home. But I was excited to own another book in one of my favorite series. However, after reading the latest WorldWatch, I've decided to cancel my pre-order. Its the only peaceful protest I can make. I will continue to campaign for day when commitment is honored and recognized regardless of the individuals involved. I will also recommit myself to not financially supporting individuals who encourage exclusion and fear.

I do not want to argue the "morality" of gay marriage. I don't have a problem with his position. He is welcome to his opinion. I have a problem with his language and scare tactics.

I counted about ten appearances of the word "force." Oh, the horror of being forced to live alongside loving couples of the same sex. And let's not forget the stance against abortion, even though gay couples would be able to offer stable homes for all of the children given up for adoption.

quote:
Many people who have telephoned people about Prop. 8 have heard the person who answers the phone say, "No gay marriage! I am voting no on Prop. 8!" But when you try to explain that if you don't want gay marriage, you have to vote yes on Prop. 8, they often get confused.
If people cannot do the simple research prior to voting, they probably shouldn't be voting. I also reject the notion that the only way Prop. 8 will lose is because the "moral majority" was tricked..

quote:
We citizens do not have to recognize any attempt by any body of government to redefine a human relationship that existed for thousands of years before any existing government or constitution was established.
It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?

quote:
Nor do they have the power to force us to change our understanding of marriage. Regardless of what the government says, if we as individuals or communities refuse to accept anything except a heterosexual bond as a "marriage," we cannot be forced to change our mind, our language, or our social behavior.
I AGREE COMPLETELY! So then what is OSC so scared of? He goes on and on about how gay marriage is being forced on opponents. But its not! His marriage with his wife isn't be threatened. Two men or two women swearing lifelong devotion to one another in no way devalues his own commitment to the spouse of his choice. And he is welcome to raise his children however he would like. Trust me, I've met many individuals who had their racial fears passed onto them from their parents. And no, I do not see the differences.

One of my college professors is an older gay gentleman who grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas. He often remarks that no matter how long he lives, he can't escape the hateful claims made by the majority who fear a disenfranchised minority. Its the same language, the same approach every time.

And I am sure with time that American ideals will once again overcome and our government will remember its place as the protection for the minority.

In the end, I will certainly read "Ender in Exile." I respect Card as a fiction writer, but find him lacking as a fellow citizen.

Posts: 1724 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I guess I'll have to preorder it to show my support then.

And I'm not really sure how the correlarry to interracial marriage stacks up. I'd like to see some statistics on how well interracial marriages do, really. I mean, I'm sure everyone around here is sick of hearing about my anecdotal evidence.

Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.

Interrracial divorce appears to be 10 percentage points more likely (41% to 31% by this survey). They call this "not hugely so" but I guess it depends on how serious you find "marital disruption" as a social ill. There are some findings that multiracial children are more likely to suffer mood disorders (this link disputes the matter) and some say if it is the case, it is society's fault, not the family structure. Well, we've had 40 years to sort out the society end of things.

Of course, being biracial, I suppose I have made the choice to inflict these same problems on my children. The thing is, I'll at least name it for being a challenge rather than insist that the rest of society pretend we're normal, and call anyone who believes otherwise evil.

Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was referring more to general racial struggles and attitudes than race in terms of marriage. Most of my relationships have been interracial and it was in those relationships that I realized just how big of a role racism still plays in current times. My mom had a hard time dealing with it, I counted quite a few harsh stares while out and about, and so forth. My most serious ex-boyfriend and I went to the same college and good high schools, but our experiences were vastly as I was just another white suburban girl in the south and he had struggled with being the "token black kid" who didn't really fit in anywhere. This disparity in background altered our perceptions on quite a few issues and while every couple has hurdles to overcome, its one more than white/white and black/black couples face.

There are people who disagreed, based solely on their views regarding race, with the dating choices I've made but even in the South, very few vocalized their opinion and those who did spoke apologetically. They've become a smaller and smaller group with every generation. And it'll happen with the gay marriage opponents too.

There were those who spoke vehemently about being "forced" to mix with people of a different race. I choose to believe that when interracial marriage became legal and socially acceptable, and the world didn't end, people realized that they didn't have anything to worry about. And I choose to believe that they developed this opinion through personal witness or tolerant teachings by their parents. Not by being brainwashed as OSC would have people believe.

Gay marriage will not end badly for women. I would rather be single than find out later that my husband was gay, making his life one of denial and mine one of lies and false beliefs. I look forward to the wedding invitations from all my gay classmates. They threw some of the best parties in college. Bring it on!

Posts: 1724 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JustAskIndiana
Member
Member # 9268

 - posted      Profile for JustAskIndiana           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?
Every single one of those examples has one thing in common: however the relationship may have been created or for what motive, it was between a male and female.

The thing is, marriage isn't just between two people; it's between two people and the community in which they live. If this were not the case, then there would be no point in gays fighting for "marriage" rights in the first place.

Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shanna, I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone in your feelings on this issue. I've decided not to go into length anymore on this topic on Hatrack, since there are enough Mormons here that it can't help but raise hackles and, really, I don't want to get mad at people who don't think they have any choice but to march in lockstep about this. I firmly believe that they'll look back on this time in their history with shame and confusion, but it's theirs to own for now.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom can't win for losing.

quote:
I don't want to get mad at people who don't think they have any choice but to march in lockstep about this.
If you get mad, it's not anyone's fault but your own. Don't blame your emotional issues on others-- is this sounding familiar to you at all?

Let me point out that at least two Mormons here have voiced opposition to OSC's beliefs regarding SSM-- I'm thinking specifically of Rabbit and Tatiana.

I'm fairly certain that most of the Mormons who are active on this board have thought about this issue in detail-- and there's nothing "lockstep" about the way we swagger, Tom.

EDIT: That is, I'm at least aware of the choice I make when I oppose same sex marriage. I'm not doing it because Pres. Monson and the council of the twelve apostles says to oppose it. I've reasoned it out, weighed how I feel and what I think. It's NOT a matter of "pray, pay, obey." I've come to a different conclusion than you-- and I will not stand idle while you degrade that opinion to blind faith, or hand-wringing apologetics.

Posts: 14504 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom- As far as LDS having a choice, I know for a fact that you will receive absolutely no church disciplinary action no matter what way you vote on any amendment right now. So, while there might be some social pressure, ultimately, anyone can vote their heart without fear of reprisal.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, while there might be some social pressure, ultimately, anyone can vote their heart...
I believe there has been a commandment to not vote your heart on this issue, but rather to vote a specific way. You can choose to disobey it without being punished, but you must still consciously choose to disobey the command. In a society where some people don't watch R-rated movies because it's been suggested that they not do so, this is a potent force.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: I too am a Mormon who in the past has not supported efforts to curtail gay marriage. I voted against the ban that passed here in Utah. But if the Utah supreme court made rulings identical to the Californian supreme court I would be voting FOR a proposition reinstating the ban.

If the voice of the people elect to ban or to allow something contractual like marriage that is the very heart of a democracy. We endure some rules we don't agree with because it is what the people want. The state supreme court does not have the right to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. By it's very definition a constitutional amendment becomes PART of the constitution. Motions that defy the amendment are in fact unconstitutional.

Scott has already taken some of the flame out of my fire, but I am disappointed that you would blame Mormon ignorance and intolerance for your unwillingness to continue discussing this issue. It seems like a cop out at best, and completely disingenuous at worst. I do not fully comprehend my church leadership's opposition to gay marriage, but I want to. I believe there are facts that I am unaware of that could totally throttle my point of view, or strengthen my current beliefs further. I desperately hope one of our general authorities will help the church understand the mind of the Lord on this matter, but currently they have only asked those in California to support Proposition 8 which to me ban's gay marriage, but also protects the right of the people to create their social contract. The latter is so important I don't think I could overstate it.

As for us looking back on this time in shame, I am confident that even if somehow everyone suddenly concludes that homosexuality causes real harm and backpedals to the former status quo that people will quickly find another issue to batter organized religion with. They will promote it to the level of prominence homosexual rights currently enjoy today.

Even when we're right Tom we're still hopelessly wrong.

Posts: 14243 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would be voting FOR a proposition reinstating the ban.
That is not what Proposition 8 does, however.

quote:
I am disappointed that you would blame Mormon ignorance and intolerance for your unwillingness to continue discussing this issue....I am confident that even if somehow everyone suddenly concludes that homosexuality causes real harm and backpedals to the former status quo that people will quickly find another issue to batter organized religion with.
It is because religious groups are playing the victim here and pretending that their rights are being "battered" that I don't see the merit in discussing this further. Nothing is further from the truth, and I don't want to encourage people in their delusional victimization by giving them any excuse to conflate basic human rights with a dislike of their particular superstitions.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is not what Proposition 8 does, however.
The text itself does not say that it is protecting democracy, but perhaps you could explain to me what you think Proposition 8 does.

quote:
It is because religious groups are playing the victim here and pretending that their rights are being "battered" that I don't see the merit in discussing this further. Nothing is further from the truth, and I don't want to encourage people in their delusional victimization by giving them any excuse to conflate basic human rights with a dislike of their particular superstitions.
So are you saying then that opponents of this ban in no way see the ban as religious in nature and therefore deserving of their opposition? From my perspective and having read MANY articles discussing the ban the fact that religious groups support it is often brought up as a reason to oppose the ban. As in, religious nuts who are ignorant fools anyway are trying to keep the rights of homosexuals away, the judiciary was right to strike down the amendment in the first place, and this new ban must also be stopped.

edit: Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom? Regardless of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, was the court correct in the action and precedent it is setting?

Posts: 14243 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
perhaps you could explain to me what you think Proposition 8 does
Given the previous Supreme Court ruling, I think the text amends the Constitution to define the word "marriage" in a way that prevents the legal recognition of "marriage" by the state of California.

quote:
So are you saying then that opponents of this ban in no way see the ban as religious in nature and therefore deserving of their opposition?
Rather, I think that those who oppose it generally do so out of a deep desire for social justice. However, I think many people who share a desire for social justice in other cases are prevented by their religions from exercising that desire in this case. I'll not argue that you will see people cite the religious nature of the pro-Prop8 arguments as a weakness. That's because there is simply no good argument for it which does not rely on religion, and therefore the fact that the only arguments for it are religious ones -- in our secular society -- is something of a major flaw. In the same way, one might criticize Islamic sharia.

quote:
Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom?
I think they were right to do so -- given that the amendment you're referring to was actually a statutory change and not a constitutional change, and thus theoretically subject to the Supreme Court's ruling -- but moreover I don't think that's what the amendment actually did.

To actually achieve the ends they intend, voters in California should amend their Constitution to legalize discrimination by the state against homosexuals, which is currently expressly banned by their constitution. As the Supreme Court has interpreted their constitution, even laws which have an unintended discriminatory effect may be considered discriminatory; California needs to reverse this interpretation, either through express amendment or additional legal precedent, before it can interpret its marriage law in a way that is even unintentionally discriminatory.

It is my opinion that the drafters of these ridiculous amendments are perfectly well aware of these issues, and a) don't want to put the issue even temporarily to bed, so they deliberately introduce loopholes that'll encourage further controversy; and b) lack the courage to just come out with a "Discrimination is A-OK by Us" proposition.

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: Interesting. I don't have time to respond now, in fact I just forfeited finishing a term paper to read these threads, I'll try to get to your post later in the day.

Let it be known that Tom is bad for education. [Wink]

In all seriousness though Tom, I wish you would retract your statement that the Mormons on this board are all in lock and step on this issue and have made discourse impossible.

Posts: 14243 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say they've made discourse impossible. I've said I didn't want to get mad at the Mormons on this board for voting as per the demands of their church leadership, even if it's at the cost of social justice -- and, moreover, that I didn't want to give the religious any additional excuse to claim that I'm supporting same-sex marriage out of some desire to hurt Religion in general.

I'm perfectly aware that there are Mormons on this board who oppose Proposition 8. I'm also aware that, in so doing, they are disobeying an explicit and unambiguous command. Not everyone can bring themselves to do that, and it's unfair to expect it of them.

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blindsay
Member
Member # 11787

 - posted      Profile for blindsay   Email blindsay         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom?
I think they were right to do so -- given that the amendment you're referring to was actually a statutory change and not a constitutional change, and thus theoretically subject to the Supreme Court's ruling -- but moreover I don't think that's what the amendment actually did.

To actually achieve the ends they intend, voters in California should amend their Constitution to legalize discrimination by the state against homosexuals, which is currently expressly banned by their constitution. As the Supreme Court has interpreted their constitution, even laws which have an unintended discriminatory effect may be considered discriminatory; California needs to reverse this interpretation, either through express amendment or additional legal precedent, before it can interpret its marriage law in a way that is even unintentionally discriminatory.

It is my opinion that the drafters of these ridiculous amendments are perfectly well aware of these issues, and a) don't want to put the issue even temporarily to bed, so they deliberately introduce loopholes that'll encourage further controversy; and b) lack the courage to just come out with a "Discrimination is A-OK by Us" proposition. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.

The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?

Where do you draw the line?

The problem with discrimination is that the word gets thrown around too often. If I do something that offends you, I am disciminating against you. If you have different skin color than me and I say something to you that you don't like, I am discriminating. If you have a different lifestyle that I don't agree with, I am discriminating. Not to bring up another unrelated subject, but I do not agree with amnesty to illegal immigrants. Does that make me racist or discriminatory?

People have different morals and ideas. Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want. Because of this, the majority determines what is legal and what is not. The majority of people believe murder should not be allowed, so it is not. The majority of people think that rape should not be allowed, so it is not.

Be glad you don't live in another country.

In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act.

Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want.

Assuming you're talking about the United States, this country is more about personal liberties and collective wisdom than self delusion.
Posts: 1018 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.

I take great offense as a human being to you for daring to suggest that a relationship between two consensual adults is the same as bestiality or child abuse. I'm going to assume that you're being purposefully inflammatory, in which case I would ask you to rescind that comment immediately.

If you honestly can't tell the difference, then I feel horribly sorry for your ignorance, and I'd like to express my sincere hope that you never post such ignorance again.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:

Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.

Well, that's not the standard. The standard is the people making the contract have to be in a position to give meaningful consent. Ainmals, can't do that, and neither can children, espeically children being coerced by adults who want things form them.

Now, if you think that this is the wrong standard, that informed consent is irrelvent, then say so openly. Don't slyly make an argument that takes assumes that informed consent is irrelevent, when no one else thinks it is.

As for polygamy, it's not directly comprable at all. The government is perfectly justified in counting heads. What they are not allowed to do, except under a very limited number of circumstances, is count penises.

quote:
The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?
No, because informed, free consent is important. I get that you think it is irrelvent, but surely you know that everyone else thinks it is highly relevent.

quote:
People have different morals and ideas. Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want.
Sure. But you can't stop me from having my civil rights based on the fact that you believe I don't desrve them.

quote:
Because of this, the majority determines what is legal and what is not.
The way the majority thought that Jim Crow laws were great ideas?

No, if the Constitution says that something is my right, then it's illegal to keep it from me, no matter how unpopular beign fair to me is.

I'll say it again, in super bold so maybe it will sink in

The majority can't violate the Constitution, no matter how popular it is

quote:
The majority of people believe murder should not be allowed, so it is not.
Okay. So explain why it's not legal for a white majority state to pass a law by majority recinding the laws against murder against black people going to the polls.

quote:
The majority of people think that rape should not be allowed, so it is not.
So if a majority rules that the marital rape exemption should be put back into place, you will argue that women can do nothing but hope for a majority to overturn that law?

What if a majority of New Yorkers decide they are sick of being screwed over by Wall street bankers, and pass a law taking all their property, and throwing them out of the city? You are seriously arguing that the bankers have no legal recourse?

What happens if a majority decides they don't like you? Do you honestly think that you have no legal recourse form the tyranny of the majority at all?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shanna, I would like to add my voice to Tom's. I stopped buying or even reading OSC's books once I started reading his columns.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, it's beyond tacky for people to come to this site and advertise their boycott of the site's owner.

Sure, no one called for anyone to join them. But those posting their decision to not buy the book could have accomplished the goal of letting OSC know of their decision without posting it here. That leads me to believe that the goal involved telling people other than OSC about this decision to not read his works.

And doing that here is tacky.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blindsay
Member
Member # 11787

 - posted      Profile for blindsay   Email blindsay         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:


As for polygamy, it's not directly comprable at all. The government is perfectly justified in counting heads. What they are not allowed to do, except under a very limited number of circumstances, is count penises.


So the government cannot count the number of penises in a relationship, but the government can count the number of vaginas if there is a penis thrown in there somewhere?
Can you tell me what is wrong with a child having multiple mothers to care for them? Or having a husband providing for and taking care of multiple wives? If two fathers or two mothers are fine for a child, why not one father and two mothers? Or 5 mothers? Wouldn't that be even better?
I apologize for bringing the adult/minor argument in, as well as bestiality. You were correct in that it was irrelavent and completely different. At times I don't think things through as much as I should. I do feel however that the polygamy argument is valid.
In the 1800's the LDS church practiced polygamy. Because of the persecution of the church the members were constantly on the move, often times in horrible weather. Many men died and the women had nowhere to turn. Polygamy enabled the women to have a husband to care for them and to provide for them and their children.
I don't believe there was much outcry when polygamy was banned in the U.S. I don't believe there were special interest groups or human rights groups fighting for the polygamists rights.
Here we are in 2008 now, and polygamy is still considered to be considered a bad thing. Yet it is "Cool" to be an 80 year old guy living with and sleeping with all sorts of young women outside of marriage. (Here's looking at you Hef)
Do I think there is a double standard? You bet I do. I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument. Every time I have asked for a reason I always get the same answer. Its either "Its more than two people" or "The government can count heads." And my answer back is "So?"
If we really want every person to have their right to be with whomever they wish, why should polygamy be any different?
Again, I apologize for the comments I made before.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:

So the government cannot count the number of penises in a relationship, but the government can count the number of vaginas if there is a penis thrown in there somewhere?

No, they can count the number of persons. They don't have to look down any of their pants.

Why are you so intent on having the government look down your pants before granting you your civil rights?

quote:
Can you tell me what is wrong with a child having multiple mothers to care for them? Or having a husband providing for and taking care of multiple wives? If two fathers or two mothers are fine for a child, why not one father and two mothers? Or 5 mothers? Wouldn't that be even better?
Maybe. But marriage is a two-person thing. The govenrment is allowed to count persons. If you think not, try writing that you have 10 dependants on your taxes, and preventing the government from verifying that you do indeed have ten such persons dependant on you.

quote:
I apologize for bringing the adult/minor argument in, as well as bestiality. You were correct in that it was irrelavent and completely different. At times I don't think things through as much as I should.
Ah, but there are two points here.

There's what you think is a rational argument, and what you really believe and why.

It is always, always a very good thing to understand why you believe what you believe. And if you believe that gay people are as hurtful as child molesters, then it's good that you explictly know that you believe that. And it's good for everyone else to understand that you believe that.

So by all means, make the arguments that move you.

quote:
Here we are in 2008 now, and polygamy is still considered to be considered a bad thing. Yet it is "Cool" to be an 80 year old guy living with and sleeping with all sorts of young women outside of marriage. (Here's looking at you Hef)
And therefore, gay people should not be allowed to have honest marriages because of...?

quote:
I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument.
Well, I don't understand why this is an argument for hurting millions of innocent gay people by denying them their civil rights.

Polygamists are, right now, able to engage in an honest marriage, with a person they truly love and intend to spend their life with. Gay people don't even have that.

Frnakly, if polygamists can work out an equitable way to stretch the law so that it does what they wish (For instance, if a man has three spouses, who gets to be the decision maker with regard to his medical care? When there is only one spouse, the answer is simple.)I say let them do it, unless someone can make a pressing case why they shouldn't.

There are such a tiny number of legitimate cases where non-coerced adults would desire such a situation, it's not really worth fighting over.

quote:
Again, I apologize for the comments I made before.
Your apology is nice, but the question is, do you only regret voicing such insulting sentiments, or do you regret believing such things? Are you really trying to say that only today did you realize that consent matters in civil marriage, and only becuase it was pointed out to you by other people?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I rather think that blindsay is recognizing that they engaged in hyperbole, and backing down from said hyperbole with relative grace.

I think trying to grill them on said hyperbole after extracting an apology and retraction is in pretty poor form. They admitted it's not relevant. Don't try to demonize them. Just stick with that they're still claiming, please.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.

The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?

To answer the question as it was asked to me: I consider a non-consensual relationship to be definitionally harmful. Heck, I define "harm" for myself in a way that explicitly clarifies the role of intentionality. I personally don't see anything wrong with polygamy -- but bestiality, pedophilia, and incest all involve certain factors which, to my mind, call into serious question the possibility that all the parties involved are capable of unconstrained consent to the relationship. This doesn't mean that all bestiality, pedophilia, and incest is necessarily harmful, mind you, but I think the difficulty of establishing the quality of consent for any one specific relationship of those types is high enough that it'd be functionally impossible for our legal system to determine merit on an individual basis. And in the same way that we draw an arbitrary line in the sand at the age of 16 and say, "younger than this, you cannot drive -- no matter how good you are," I'm comfortable saying, "you can't marry your sister or your dog, no matter how much they seem to want it and no matter how healthy your relationship is."

Yes, this may well deeply disappoint a number of individuals. However, the number of individuals disappointed is much, much lower in these cases -- and, moreover, the requirements of entry are made clearer and more universal. I don't think this is where society will, in ten thousand years, end up -- but I think it's another stage in its evolution.

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sure, no one called for anyone to join them. But those posting their decision to not buy the book could have accomplished the goal of letting OSC know of their decision without posting it here. That leads me to believe that the goal involved telling people other than OSC about this decision to not read his works.

And doing that here is tacky.

You may read into it whatever you want. Like you said, I did not call for anyone to follow suit. And honestly, do you think OSC would look at the first week of the new book sales and think "oh, there's one missing, I wonder why!"

quote:
quote: It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?

Every single one of those examples has one thing in common: however the relationship may have been created or for what motive, it was between a male and female.

Maybe my morals are off, but I believe homosexual and two-partner heterosexual unions are more similar than "the definition of marriage" and polygamy or other expressions of marriage.

American society currently holds in high standing the concept of two consenting adults, one man and one woman, declaring lifelong devotion based on love and respect.

With gay marriage, we're proposing to keep the standard of two consenting adults making a life-long commitment based on love. We're just want to alter the gender bit.

I see alot of common ground there.

Look throughout history. Think about the women sold by their families for economic and political gain. The arranged marriages of child-brides. Etc, and so forth.

That's why I don't see it as a slippery slope. When you define marriage by the the gender of the participants, you're ignoring the very sanctity you claim to hold so dear. When the preference is based on genitals and not the commitments of the heart, THAT is when you invite a slippery slope of immorality and marriage for personal gain.

Posts: 1724 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And honestly, do you think OSC would look at the first week of the new book sales and think "oh, there's one missing, I wonder why!"
No. I don't see any way you could rationally think I thought that.

You could, however, have contacted him privately if your desire was to simply inform him of your choice.

There are also thousands of site where you could have posted your decision that are not paid for by OSC.

Edit: Also, you did intend to "make my protest clear, explain why, and perhaps encourage others to act as they see fit in their own lives."

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if he actually has a problem with me politely and without hostility sharing my opinion, then he is welcome to contact me and let me know. If promotion was his sole concern, it doesn't make sense to have a forum to share ideas if only one side is allowed. But again, if this is his position, I will happily vacate.
Posts: 1724 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If promotion was his sole concern, it doesn't make sense to have a forum to share ideas if only one side is allowed.
Clearly more than one side is allowed. I myself have written posts opposing OSC's ideas on gay marriage. Nor did I say that promotion is his sole concern in having the forum. I'm also pretty sure you know that.

quote:
if he actually has a problem with me politely and without hostility sharing my opinion, then he is welcome to contact me and let me know.
He won't do that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, too. That's precisely the reason I'm commenting on it.

He's an author. This is his site. You want to not buy his books because of his political opinions? Fine. You want to explain your reasons and encourage others to act in their own lives? Fine. I'm actually a strong proponent of boycotts. But using the resources of the boycott target to publicize it is tacky.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
...
Be glad you don't live in another country.
...
Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.

For the sake of clarity, I truly don't understand this particular section. [Confused]
Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BLindsay got this far, looked at his post, and thought, "Hrm. It's not long enough. I'm going to throw in this bit from an email I got without factchecking it on Snopes or anything first."
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but even if thats true I'm confused.

See, the other three sentences make sense, presumably one is to be glad that one doesn't live in those three countries where these odd arbitrary laws apply. (And presumably blindsay is essentially saying, "hey, these places are even worse than us. So whats the big deal?")

But I don't get this one.
Is it saying that its horrible to be in a society that permits topless saleswomen? But then why pick Liverpool? Canada allows topless women, period, on the grounds that its discriminatory to allow topless men but not women.
Or is it the other way around? Look how horrible it is to live in a society that forcibly clothes its women?

And how do the goldfish fit in?

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
...
Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.

Re: marriage squeeze for Asian men

Verily. It seems quite the hot topic to put it mildly.

But did you actually mean to say that gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women (if so, please elaborate on why it would affect women disproportionately) or just that interracial marriage is winding up badly for women?

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it is just factually inaccurate to say that gay marriage will somehow not allow us to produce enough children. What about artifical insemination? IIRC, Melissa Etheridge and her first female life partner had two children this way, by David Crosby. I don't think they're the only lesbian couple to do this.

I can see that it might cause a slight lowering effect on the birth rate, but come on. The BS alarmism over this is so silly. Like it's going to make a big difference in the birth rate. How is that a reasonable conclusion?

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CG-LJ
New Member
Member # 11793

 - posted      Profile for CG-LJ   Email CG-LJ         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. I am not a scholar, nor am I a published writer. I do love the stories that Mr. Card tell and hope to read more from him. He has an awesome imagination.

I am fortunate to live in a FREE Country where I can be a gay man if I so choose. It seems that with every election, my countrymen and women get further and further from the basic principals that this country was founded on, so many years ago.

Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all. Our country was founded so that the people(that's you and me) can practice what ever religion they so choose, without fear of persecution, public or private!

Our Government is supposed to be separated from all Churches. Marriage between a man and a women, has been defined for most of time (but not all) as being between opposite sex couples, by the religious institutions, not by governments.

For a religious person to say that I can not commit myself to one person, as they have done to their spouse, is a violation of the Constitution of this Country.

I do not care where Mr. Card Votes. That is his right as Citizen, and I think you should be ashamed to try and sway his choice by your actions. I do not purchase Mr. Card's books because I like his political views, or because I use to be LDS, I buy them because to me they ROCK.

I can pick up one of his books and loose myself in another character. I can forget about my own life drama, and be shooting across the stars in search of a planet for my aunt like friends.

If you choose what you will purchase based upon the creators political choices, than you might as well, turn off your computer, take all of your clothes off and go live in a rain forest some where.

As for me, A OUT GAY MAN, I will vote no on Prop 8, and I will still purchase the Awesome short stories and books by Mr. Card.

just my 2 cents

Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to Hatrack, CG-LJ and blindsay. You both seem like good folks. I hope you'll both stick around.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, he has a right to his opinion and his political choices. I take offense not to his stance, but to his decision to incite fear and panic. Its one to thing to say that "my religion disapproves of homosexuality" and its another claim that gay marriage is being FORCED on society with detrimental effects.

As one of those individuals too poor to be a Republican, I am a fairly small consumer. I spend as much on books in two months as I might spend on clothes in a whole year. It is fully in my right to say that I don't feel like financing certain attitudes. I'm interested in politics but you won't see me purchasing "Obamanation" and sending money to Corsi.

Thankfully libraries and comfy chairs at bookstores provide plenty of opportunities for myself and others to read and stay informed without financially supporting those with views I find to be offensive.

I applaud OSC's ability to write for a unified audience and for the most part contain some of his political and social views. I read "Ender's Game" and "Songmaster" and "Enchantment" and have a hard-time believing that Card the Author and Card the Columnist are the same person. But I found the language of his latest column too offensive to continue to ignore. So I won't.

And this is the most acceptable, polite form of protest that I can think of.

Posts: 1724 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lanfear
Member
Member # 7776

 - posted      Profile for Lanfear   Email Lanfear         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm all for you protesting your own preorder Shanna. But coming here to try to "convince others" to protest with you is ... unnecessary.

We all have different political opinions. I'm sure you don't go out and research all those involved in a film beforehand and double check to make sure none of them are communists.

Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish I could believe any of these supposed "conservatives" gave a damn about defending democracy or the Constitution when attacking judicial interference.

In reality what I've seen Orson Scott Card and his fellow Republicans do (let's not pretend he's a Democrat in anything but name) is urge the Court to violate the constitution in the direction they themselves desire.

I've not seen Orson Scott Card oppose federal drug laws, even though there's nothing in the constitution that e.g. allows the federal government to outlaw marijuana or any other drug. If Republicans wants federal anti-drug laws he they should seek a constitutional amendment.

I've instead seen Orson Scott Card argue that when the constitution says "people", that it means "citizens" instead. Orson Scott Card is all in favor of the constitution being twisted so as to allow the government to electrocute people's genitals, as long as those people are foreigner people.

Since *I* am a foreigner, I don't very much appreciate Orson Scott Card's position that the US government is allowed to electrocute my genitals.

So, NO SYMPATHY FROM ME, for poor poor Orson Scott Card and his supposed caring for freedom and democracy. What I see is liberal judges trying to protect individuals from government interference, and reactionary judges trying to allow government control over the individuals (whether by forbidding drugs, or by allowing governmental interference in abortion, or by allowing the violation of Habeas Corpus).

Except that gee, the former attitude is justified by the following: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

And the latter attitude, OSC's attitude, is not justified by anything at all except his own whims.

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is fully in my right to say that I don't feel like financing certain attitudes.
Yep. I haven't seen anyone say it's not your right.

It's also fully my right to say it's rude and tacky to do so here.

quote:
Thankfully libraries and comfy chairs at bookstores provide plenty of opportunities for myself and others to read and stay informed without financially supporting those with views I find to be offensive.
So this is one of those protests where you don't actually sacrifice anything. You'll still get to read the book he wrote, and get the pleasure from that. But, by golly, you'll tell everyone - on his own site, no less - that you won't buy his book.

You've said you expect this to not influence OSC at all. And it's not going to actually affect you - you'll read the book in your comfy chair.

quote:
And this is the most acceptable, polite form of protest that I can think of.
And I would have a lot of respect for it, except for the part where you attack his livelihood using resources he sets aside to further it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's also fully my right to say it's rude and tacky to do so here.
Dag, would you feel the same way about someone explaining why they're boycotting the Boy Scouts of America on the BSA site? Or Coca-Cola, on one of Coca-Cola's various forums?

I'm wondering whether it's because OSC is an individual that you feel this way, or because you're opposed in principle to the appropriation of any agency's own thoughtspace -- because, let's face it, the issue is more one of visibility here than the cost of resources -- in criticizing aspects of that agency's behavior.

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dag, would you feel the same way about someone explaining why they're boycotting the Boy Scouts of America on the BSA site? Or Coca-Cola, on one of Coca-Cola's various forums?
I'm not sure I'd feel the same way, since there's an undeniable personal aspect to it being done here, but I think it's wrong to do it in any of the three settings.

The irony is that if BSA or Coca-Cola removed such posts from their forum, they'd probably face less flak in the Slashdots and Arse Technicas of the net than if OSC removed this thread.

quote:
because, let's face it, the issue is more one of visibility here than the cost of resources
And the issue isn't about visibility or cost of resources. It's about the use of his resources even though it doesn't increase his costs and the taking advantage of the fact that he's created this site for us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kacard
Administrator
Member # 200

 - posted      Profile for kacard   Email kacard         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris said: "Since *I* am a foreigner, I don't very much appreciate Orson Scott Card's position that the US government is allowed to electrocute my genitals."

You guys probably all know that I read just about everything here. Mostly I patiently watch and let it go. Freedom of speech you know. Tolerance of all ideas is a big deal at our house. But every now and then my patience wears thin and this one was WAY over my edge. (Out and out lies and character assassination are hard to take first thing in the morning.)

Here is what OSC ACTUALLY has said about torture. I'm afraid your misrepresentation was more than I could take today.

An excerpt:

World Watch
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

By Orson Scott Card May 9, 2004

How Could Americans Do Such Things?

People in authority sometimes forget that their abstract words can turn into painfully specific actions on the ground.

For instance, I can imagine somebody reporting to a high Defense Department official: "We're not getting any useful information out of the prisoners we're arresting in Iraq."

There are several correct responses that high official could give, and all of them are questions:

"Are we already doing everything we legally or decently can in order to secure their cooperation?"

"Are we getting reliable information from cooperative Iraqis about which people to arrest?"

"Are we arresting the wrong people?"

Instead the high official thinks: Our soldiers are being killed out there, and if we could get more information we could save American lives. That is my first responsibility.

So he answers, "Don't tell me what you aren't getting! Make it happen!"

And if the high Defense Department official has already gotten rid of any subordinates with the spunk (i.e., "disloyalty") to say things like, "Sir, we are already at the limit of what the Geneva Convention and American law and public opinion will tolerate," then those words remain unsaid.

Instead, "Make it happen!" is the message that gets passed down the line.

Now, in a peacetime bureaucracy, ludicrous commands from superiors are often ignored or delayed, thus saving the country -- and the leader -- from some of his dumber mistakes.

But in wartime, there's a sense of urgent duty -- especially when accompanied by the mantra "American lives are at stake."

After all, that mantra happens to be true. There are terrorists and rebels and foreign agents in Iraq, plotting ways to kill American and allied soldiers -- and to kill Iraqis who cooperate with us.

It's so easy to lose track of another fact: Most of the people we arrest probably don't know anything useful, so no matter what we do to them, they can't give us any more information than we already have.

All we can do by humiliating, abusing, or torturing them is to make them into enemies -- and, when the facts come out (as, in a democracy like ours, they always do) earn the contempt and hatred of the world, and the outraged shame of our own people.

So here's a moral question for all of us to consider.

What if those wretched, shameful actions in Iraqi prisons (and the pictures we've seen are only the tip of the iceberg) brought us ten cases of prisoners giving up information that led to preventing ten acts of terrorism?

And let's say that those acts of terrorism might have caused an average of five deaths each?

Would that humiliation, abuse, and torture have been worth it, if it saved fifty lives?

If someone reached the conclusion that the lives saved were worth the degradation of ourselves and our prisoners, I would not consider them morally monstrous. A case can be made for that viewpoint.

But I would disagree with them. Perhaps because I think there are things more important than life.

Aren't our soldiers in Iraq precisely because there are causes worth putting the lives of our soldiers at risk? Liberating the Iraqi people, cutting off a major supporter of terrorism, preventing the development or deployment of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was known to possess or be working on, and discouraging other nations from supporting terrorism -- those were all worthy reasons for putting our soldiers in harm's way.

Isn't maintaining our own decency as a nation, even in time of war, also worth risking the lives of American soldiers? Isn't maintaining America as America also a cause worth dying for?

Then, when you consider that the value of the intelligence gathered from these prisoners has been characterized as trivial, chances are that we lost some of our honor in those prisons in exchange for nothing.

Not fifty lives. Not ten lives. Not five.

Nothing.

[ October 22, 2008, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: kacard ]

Posts: 766 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The irony is that if BSA or Coca-Cola removed such posts from their forum, they'd probably face less flak in the Slashdots and Arse Technicas of the net than if OSC removed this thread.
*nod* That's actually why I asked. I think there is a uniquely personal element to the interaction here that (IMO) both inspires people to do what Shanna's done, here, in (distant) hopes of directly influencing OSC himself; and also makes such actions more presumptuous than if they were in a more "corporate" environment.

(And along those lines: thanks, Kristine. It's been a few years, and it's good to be reminded of that essay now and then.)

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blindsay
Member
Member # 11787

 - posted      Profile for blindsay   Email blindsay         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:


But marriage is a two-person thing. The govenrment is allowed to count persons. If you think not, try writing that you have 10 dependants on your taxes, and preventing the government from verifying that you do indeed have ten such persons dependant on you.



quote:
I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument.
Well, I don't understand why this is an argument for hurting millions of innocent gay people by denying them their civil rights.

Polygamists are, right now, able to engage in an honest marriage, with a person they truly love and intend to spend their life with. Gay people don't even have that.

Frnakly, if polygamists can work out an equitable way to stretch the law so that it does what they wish (For instance, if a man has three spouses, who gets to be the decision maker with regard to his medical care? When there is only one spouse, the answer is simple.)I say let them do it, unless someone can make a pressing case why they shouldn't.

There are such a tiny number of legitimate cases where non-coerced adults would desire such a situation, it's not really worth fighting over.

[/QB]

I never said gay couples should not have civil rights, and I believe I have made this clear already.
I think gay couples should be able to be joined and enjoy the same rights. What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
The religious community is happy, and the gay couples that are joined together enjoy all of the same benefits. They can call it marriage if they want in the ceremony, but have it called something else on legal documents.
My point is this: If you re-define marriage for one community of people, then would it not be discriminatory to not re-define marriage for another community of people?

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
My point has been that the only reason you'd ever want to call it something else is because you don't want to consider it exactly like marriage. If it were exactly like marriage, you'd call it marriage.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.

I have question...how much money would it take to convince you to get a civil divorce, and get a civil union with your spouse instead?

What if you and your future spouse were at the courthouse, waiting to get your license...and the line to get a marraige license was 15 minutes long, and the line for civil unions was empty.

Are you really saying that you wouldn't wait the 15 minutes to get a marriage that you claim is exactly identical to a civil union? I don't think so. I bet you would wait a great deal longer to avoid the civil union, and get the real marrriage.

[ October 22, 2008, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: swbarnes2 ]

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find OSC's rhetoric in the WW columns loathsome. Even when I agree with him, I'm ashamed to admit it because of the intellectual dishonesty he continually shows in those columns.

When the fiction starts reading like the columns I'll give it up (which is why I didn't read Empire). Until then, I'll continue to support one of my favorite authors whenever he writes something I want to read.

Posts: 5454 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scooter
Member
Member # 6915

 - posted      Profile for Scooter   Email Scooter         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blindsay:
[QUOTE]I never said gay couples should not have civil rights, and I believe I have made this clear already.
I think gay couples should be able to be joined and enjoy the same rights. What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
The religious community is happy, and the gay couples that are joined together enjoy all of the same benefits. They can call it marriage if they want in the ceremony, but have it called something else on legal documents.
My point is this: If you re-define marriage for one community of people, then would it not be discriminatory to not re-define marriage for another community of people?

You've hit what is at the heart of the matter--this battle is mostly about legitimizing a lifestyle/orientation. What better way than to tap into a universal, traditional, government-supported institution of marriage?

Many against same-sex-marriage are motivated by not wanting to further legitimize homosexuality, many for it want to legitimize homosexuality. Many supporters of same-sex marriage who are gay do not want to marry (they see it as a broken institution, or too restrictive) but want to be acknowledged on equal ground with heterosexuals by having the same right (even though they have the exact same right as heterosexuals--no man can marry another man regardless of sexual orientation; but admittedly they have fewer options in their choices of mate, etc.). Thus, there really is no room for a compromise.

Of course others are for and against same-sex marriage for other reasons, but the above explanation describes enough people that a "separate but equal" type scenario won't fly.

By the way, as for the initial post, saying that all committed relationships should be equally acknowledged and sanctioned by the government sounds like a simple emotional reaction--government and society do not have the same stake in just any committed relationship; there should be some rationale for why a given relationship should be protected if not promoted due to its social good. There are volumes of studies to give justification for marriage (as it has been practiced--namely, heterosexual) and for parent-child relationships. Equating everything else with those just because of commitment is irrational.

Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kacard:
[QBYou guys probably all know that I read just about everything here. Mostly I patiently watch and let it go. Freedom of speech you know. Tolerance of all ideas is a big deal at our house. But every now and then my patience wears thin and this one was WAY over my edge. (Out and out lies and character assassination are hard to take first thing in the morning.)

Here is what OSC ACTUALLY has said about torture. I'm afraid your misrepresentation was more than I could take today.

Yes. That was what OSC was saying about torture BACK IN 2004.

Back when he could still hope to claim that Bush hadn't explicitly authorized torture, that it may have all been a big misunderstanding caused by Rumsfeld's temper. Even in 2006, he still ludicrously claimed "there is not a shred of evidence that America is using torture anywhere". Even when photos of a taxi-driver tortured to death in Bagram was posted online for all the world to see, OSC brazenly denied that anyone was torturing anyone anywhere.

This was again utter nonsense, and therefore in the last few years OSC has modified his beliefs accordingly. Now in http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html OSC speaks about the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens".

As I have non-existent constitutional rights, the government is allowed to torture me.

OSC may still claim that torturing me may be *morally* wrong of course, but that doesn't stop him from considering it within the constitutional rights of his government.

He may consider torture to be bad, but that doesn't stop him from considering it his legal constitutional right. As long as the person being tortured is a foreigner, ofcourse ofcourse.

Posts: 669 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:

This was again utter nonsense, and therefore in the last few years OSC has modified his beliefs accordingly. Now in http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html OSC speaks about the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens".

... Wrong. In that essay, where he brings up the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens," torture was not mentioned, or even implied. The only paragraph that even brings up the constitutional rights of noncitizens just mentions phone-monitoring.
Posts: 1018 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2