posted
Uh, dude, Mozart had kids.... Mozart had 6 kids, 4 who died in childbirth and the two that survived did not marry or have kids.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. [Smile]
Where exactly does he preach that line? I may be mistaken, because I don't read and re-read Card like I used to, but I don't recall him ever 'preaching' that procreation was the only way to accomplish something real and lasting.
(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:))
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point is that you have to ignore a boatload of fact (anecdotal, but still fact) to believe the bullhockey that you have to marry and/or procreate to accomplish something real and/or lasting. That is, BTW, the line that OSC is preaching, and I am refuting that very line. [Smile]
Where exactly does he preach that line? I may be mistaken, because I don't read and re-read Card like I used to, but I don't recall him ever 'preaching' that procreation was the only way to accomplish something real and lasting.
(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:))
He hammers that line constantly in the Shadow series at least, and a bit in the original Ender series... The whole Shadow series after Ender's Shadow should be called, Stop Reading this Book and Have Babies, in which I would reply, send me an interesting, kind, nice man who doesn't believe in punitive discipline and has nice eyes and tattoos and is quite smart and passionate and I'D PROBABLY DO JUST THAT! if I can... And we'd also adopt! But there's no need to nag because before I didn't want kids and now I seem to want them and moth and butterfly pupae.
A quick search online states that Bach's descendants that are living are in the US.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Are you saying you have no desire to find a mate? You have no desire to leave a part of yourself in this world after you die? That seems like a sad existence.
quote:Everyone I know wants to be part of the web of life. Maybe not at certain points in their life, but certainly before they die. They desire community and legacy. If not, they feel unfulfilled and unhappy.
Ack, oh god. I'll start by saying that this has drifted mostly away from the author and has more to do with the notions you have taken from his book. It resonates with you, I'm sure. Bad way to confirm its universality. Even worse to assume that it must be universal to the extent that someone must have a sad existence if they "deny" it. It does not resonate within me. I know plenty of ways to desire 'community and legacy' that have nothing to do with het marriage, especially this whole 'you profoundly desire to marry those space aliens called the opposite sex' part.
I know gay dudes who are essentially married at this point and NONE of their desire for community and legacy — absolutely NONE OF IT — is left unfulfilled by the fact that they are attracted romantically to their own gender and they won't biologically have children.
I know two asexual people who themselves feel no sexual desire for anything and have no desire for romantic or sexual associations of any kind and they do not feel like they've been 'snipped' from fulfillment. They just lack that desire.
And myself. I'm pretty het. I'm sexually active. I have girlfriends, platonic and otherwise. I may, may be friends with more girls than guys. It's pretty close, about 50/50. Do I feel like I've "lost anything" by not 'confronting' the terrifying apparition of the alien Woman to get married and start popping out babies? Like it is ultimately relevant to my sense of fulfillment whether or not I biologically reproduce inside the institution of marriage? No. Do sterile couples also seem to be trapped in having a 'sad existence' like mine? No.
But the most important part, the part that absolutely does not ring true to me, so much so that it overshadows all of this, is the part about women being these foreboding, alien creatures.
It has zero relevance to my life.
I feel no desire to shack up with a girl because she is a 'strange terrifyingly other sex.' I don't find myself in relationships with women, sexual or otherwise, because they are 'strange, terrifying others' or the creatures 'most unlike me.' If I describe this concept to my friends who have married (I took the opportunity to, as well) they confirm that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way people our age in our little corner of the universe fall in love with each other. The best and most fulfilling marriages I know of are the ones that grew out of relationships that, minus the sexual part, would still have been Best Friendships. The worst and least fulfilling marriages I know of are the ones that grew out of senses of obligation and social order, especially the often explicit instructions of serious religious types that we are to go forth, pair up, and be fruitful, full quiver style.
Like I mentioned: I do not view women as a 'strange terrifyingly other sex.' I am profoundly thankful for this. I grew up in an environment which completely avoids this and I can see and interact with girls without finding them "the creature most unlike me." I consider myself better off for it.
I do not feel cursed to a life less prone to 'fulfillment.' I feel like overall it has generated more fulfillment. I also feel it can, as it has in the case of my friends, result in better sexual relationships, better sexual fulfillment, and better marriages, engaged upon for more of the right reasons and way, way less of the wrong ones.
Anton is making his statement inside a fictional universe where the statement is probably true. It was probably penned from the conclusions someone came to immersed in a culture that my parents left behind well before they had me. My world is different. It shares similarities, but the notion of a compulsion to pair up and mate with women for virtue of their alien unworldliness is not one of them. To me, Anton may as well be a character written by a Scientologist who is explaining to someone that we desire to pair up in heterosexual couples because of the impressions left on us by Body Thetans.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: rivka sounded perfectly reasonable in her last post, Orincoro, and doesn't deserve to be condescended to like that.
Edit: erm, it appears Rakeesh beat me to it.
I'm not of that opinion, clearly. I don't appreciate having the words I choose carefully ignored. I meant what I said- "look," which is why I wrote it. And in the context of what I said, which was about how OSC appeared to others, it meant just that.
"That guy looks like an idiot," fails totally as an analogy. This is about something that might make a person look foolish in the future. How could I be calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet? I might as well say, "you might fail this test if you don't study... you're therefore an idiot."
I'm not interested in debating this. I said what I said, and now you should know pretty damn well what it means.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"(Also, how exactly do you know Bach has no living descendants? You can't possibly know that:)) "
There have been some biographers who claimed Bach had no living descendants. More appropriately, he has no *known* living descendants. The chances of there remaining no one alive from his bloodline would seem a little slim to me, but considering that many of his children and extended family were famous persons with well documented lives, I think it's quite possible that this is true. No one now has a credible claim as his descendant, although the existence of at least a handful of people is possible.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not of that opinion, clearly. I don't appreciate having the words I choose carefully ignored. I meant what I said- "look," which is why I wrote it. And in the context of what I said, which was about how OSC appeared to others, it meant just that.
Yeah, well, your opinion is wrong. Just because you think your 'carefully chosen' words were ignored doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to be a jackass.
Though yes, by now it's obvious you aren't of that opinion. It's as though you wait sometimes for someone to make a misstep around you, and WHAM! Out comes the massive overreaction. That's a pretty crappy way to conduct one's self. Your holding a different opinion hardly changes that.
Also, of course, 'look' is hardly a word with just one definition, so perhaps you should choose your words more carefully in the future.
quote:
"That guy looks like an idiot," fails totally as an analogy. This is about something that might make a person look foolish in the future. How could I be calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet? I might as well say, "you might fail this test if you don't study... you're therefore an idiot."
And this fails completely as a response to what I said. It's not a matter of calling someone foolish for something they haven't done yet. It's a matter of saying they would be foolish if they do something that's being discussed. Or would be mean. Or even appear to be foolish or mean, which I suspect was one of rivka's points: that many people wouldn't think it foolish or mean for OSC to stop paying for speech that is not uncommonly against him in personal terms.
quote:I'm not interested in debating this. I said what I said, and now you should know pretty damn well what it means.
Wow, that's a very tough, stick-to-your-guns attitude. So cool! I don't really care if you're not interested in debating this (which didn't stop you from doing just that, briefly). Your reaction was unfair and wrong, and you shouldn't make such a habit of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mmm... whatever, Rakeesh. You constantly harp on me for doing exactly what you like doing here. See your last paragraph.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry to break up some high quality nonce but
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: Those who vote to protect traditional marriage and support organizations like NOM don't have a "front of justifications used to cover the real motivations". Their motivations are clear: marriage is already defined. I believe they try to present marriage and family research as a way to find common ground, not "dress up" their beliefs.
To go back to this: unsurprisingly, evidence is coming out that NOM is a front group, and NOM has already been caught illegally concealing their 990 forms.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:mmm... whatever, Rakeesh. You constantly harp on me for doing exactly what you like doing here. See your last paragraph.
What I did in that paragraph - responding rudely to you - bore very little resemblance to what you did to rivka.
For one thing, my last paragraph wasn't nearly as sneering and sarcastic as yours was to rivka-that 'nearly' is a matter of opinion, of course, but that it was less sarcastic and sneering is pretty clear.
For another thing, I was sarcastic towards you after a pretty BS (not interested in debating it indeed) response of yours, and this entire discussion started because you went way over the top towards someone who hadn't said anything objectionable.
So, yeah, not so much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Though it doesn't appear to have hit the big news websites yet, the Church is who is suggested, I think. It seems clear, at least, that some shenanigans are afoot-why else specifically resist lawful behavior like disclosing the 990s?
Edit: I haven't been able to find any comment from the NOM itself on the matter, though, and those that are making the claims are that I can see entirely groups very much opposed to NOM-so I'm taking this business with a grain of salt for the time being.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Who would they be a front group for, and to what purpose? I'm assuming this refers to a religious group or coalition?
Apparently, NOM's style is consistent with the LDS's prior strategies for front groups, based off of uncovered documents about how they ran a similar anti-SSM front organization in Hawaii, so they're fingering the Mormon church.
Nothing conclusive yet; all we know is that NOM is attempting to hide its financiers! it will be exciting to see how this all turns out!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently, NOM's style is consistent with the LDS's prior strategies for front groups, based off of uncovered documents about how they ran a similar anti-SSM front organization in Hawaii, so they're fingering the Mormon church.
Again, though, it should be said: the only evidence we actually have for this is the word of NOM's chief rival, Californians Against Hate Karger.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Another site said he had some decedents in the US. I'll look it up later. I agree with Samprimary long post. I definitely don't want to end up with a man who is alien and opposite of me. He'd probably believe in hitting and would insist that my sons by circumscribed when I don't want them to be. He'd probably think my place is in the home and I'll have to obey him! No, I'll rather be single and live in a cave instead.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Regarding the descendants, or lack thereof, of Papa Bach--
"Although Bach fathered twenty children, only ten survived infancy. He has no known descendants living today. His great-granddaughter—Frau Carolina Augusta Wilhelmine Ritter, who died May 13, 1871—was his last known descendant."
That's from the Wiki. It's at the very, very end of the Wiki.
Wikipedia is ok for general outlines, but on details like this, on a topic like this one, the sourcing of that statement is likely to be sketchy at best. I don't deny it, I just don't credit it as being particularly trustworthy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I agree with Samprimary long post. I definitely don't want to end up with a man who is alien and opposite of me. He'd probably believe in hitting and would insist that my sons by circumscribed when I don't want them to be. He'd probably think my place is in the home and I'll have to obey him! No, I'll rather be single and live in a cave instead.
First: 'circumscribed' had me thinking of the wounded stig scene from Armed and Dangerous.
Secondly, I was always confused about how someone could have stuff resembling (or even exceeding) that sort of apprehensive 'otherness' notion of the other sex, but it sort of makes sense for some upbringings, you know? I mean, grow up with parents that have you attending a school like this and women are sectioned off nigh-onto forbidden fruit 'till you're supposed to marry one.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wouldn't that just make it hard for a woman and a man to get along with each other if they think they are alien and other?
Then again, historically some marriages have been like that, and even today in various place men and women have difference spheres, but that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wikipedia is ok for general outlines, but on details like this, on a topic like this one, the sourcing of that statement is likely to be sketchy at best. I don't deny it, I just don't credit it as being particularly trustworthy."
The point being, even if you HAVE 10 kids, it's quite possible that, 200 years later, your descendants are hard to locate, which means that are almost certainly few in number.
The larger point is that one's accomplishments can far outlast one's descendants.
Only for Ormerians----Man, I'd love to see a point/counterpoint between Richard Dey and OSC---Mr. "Gays did everything great, ever!" versus Mr. "Gays are useful only when closeted and married, with bunches of kids".
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But wouldn't that just make it hard for a woman and a man to get along with each other if they think they are alien and other?
From my vantage point, yes. And according to historians that studied the history of marriage in the united states, it's likely that we're better off living in a society where people are not held into loveless marriages by an overbearing divorce stigma, and better off without a duty-based (rather than compatability based) obligation to marry that leads to many of those ill-fit marriages in the first place, and men and women are better off being able to relate to each other interpersonally in a way that's made impossible by cultures that try to turn the opposite sex into a hands-off taboo.
Prolly also better for gender fairness in the long run too since it short-circuits the whole "women are to be servile" element that thrives on cordoning off the opposite sex and keeping them in their separate corners.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: From my vantage point, yes. And according to historians that studied the history of marriage in the united states, it's likely that we're better off living in a society where people are not held into loveless marriages by an overbearing divorce stigma, and better off without a duty-based (rather than compatability based) obligation to marry that leads to many of those ill-fit marriages in the first place, and men and women are better off being able to relate to each other interpersonally in a way that's made impossible by cultures that try to turn the opposite sex into a hands-off taboo.
Talk about focusing on fringe absolutes to make a case--I'd like to see some substance to any of this statement--even if it is based in actual people's observations who have any business making them, they would only be speculative at best. Provocative for sure, but way too black and white for real life.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Provocative? Well, once upon a time the notion that people should be allowed to divorce was provocative.
And I don't need to focus on extremes; varied versions and 'strengths' of this sort of culture exist all over religious America, which intend to keep any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage taboo and inaccessible, with methods that drive a wedge between the ability of girls and boys to interact with each other the way I was thankfully able to.
It's especially hard to deny that over the last few generations we've made the wonderful wonderful transition towards marrying for love rather than marrying for social obligation. The parts of marriage that I am happy to leave behind — and which have dominated marriage through known history — include marriage that is held together only through the stigma of divorce. I know that there are plenty of people who want to preserve the rapidly aging notion that marriage is an obligation, but the second they take that notion and try to work laws around it, I feel it's important to step in and work to halt that influence, especially given the motivation behind that influence.
And no matter my sociological musings on the nature of gender relations, that's what this comes down to.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you don't need an emotional reason... you just need a reason which is tied to emotions... is what I'm getting out of that statement.
You suggested in your post that the explanations you could come up with were fear and insecurity (ie, disliking hearing opposing views). I was saying that those kinds of base emotional reactions weren't the only — or even the best — explanations. Performing at a signing is a stressful, draining experience that is supposed to have a positive outcome. If that positive outcome is removed, then it's a perfectly wise and reasonable decision to stop doing the stressful, draining thing. We don't require an explanation with pejorative connotations (however minor).
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* To be honest, that was my expectation, and why I was confused when Rakeesh was talking about physical safety. Card's said he dislikes traveling far from family for signings for years now, and I can't imagine that a signing that was both unprofitable and actively unpleasant due to the presence of protesters -- even completely non-violent, polite protesters -- would be worth the trouble.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Scott was neither invited to nor attended Janis Ian's wedding.
I'm sorry. My information from this came from a thread on Janis Ian's website in which Janis explained why she liked your husband. I'm actually relieved to learn the truth, as it is much less offensive (to me, at least) than what I'd been told
I was curious to see what Ms. Ian herself wrote, so I did the same Google search that TD did, and found the following post by Janis Ian, on her own forum, as the first result:
Okay, I give up. I'm sick of people sending me links to a year-old blog by Scott ranting about gay marriage, and demanding to know why I don't at the least stop reading/visiting/talking to him, or at the most don't burn all his books and take a public stance against him. For the record, most of the people who send me those links don't know how to spell, or use grammar. Meanwhile, here is my standard response, in an exchange that took place over a year ago with an ostensible "fan" who won't give their name. Please, if someone asks you why I'm friends with him or still read him, feel free to pass this on instead of sending it to me...
snip...
quote:Let me say first that I consider Scott a close friend; the time we don't have together physically, we make up through the heart. If I had to lean on someone, or needed an ear, I would think of him. And if you've read my autobiography, you'll know that in a time of great trouble, he was very, very, good to me. By the way, the gay community was nowhere to be seen when I was at my lowest. Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote. Given that he's a devout Mormon, of course he doesn't think gay marriage is a good thing. Let's face it - a lot of people feel that way! His article - your URL below - speaks more to the courts and the separation of church and state than my own relationship with my partner - or for that matter, Scott's other gay friends. And speaking of my partner... Scott has never treated my relationship, or my partner, with anything but the utmost respect. We've been welcomed into his home, invited to his childrens' weddings, sent announcements of births and deaths - all to both of us, as a family unit. His children regard us as a family unit, and I've never heard or felt the slightest breath of censure from any one of them. Scott's also a Republican, while I'm a Democrat - and we manage to discuss our differences over the table without ever getting loud or crazy. Personally, I think if more people did that, the world would be a better place. I'm sorry you appear ready to discount or avoid a writer of Card's stature, because I consider Scott one of the finest writers of my generation, period. His short stories about musicians and music are the best I've ever read. What a pity, to deny yourself and your friends the illumination that level of artistry can provide!
If you want to read the whole thread in context, it's here.Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't officially speak for OSC regarding his party designation, but here's what I've observed from my perspective:
His opinions are split between the two parties, and I think he's stated publically that one of the reasons he's remained a Democrat is because of some really ugly stuff he saw going on among Republicans in North Carolina.
He disagrees strongly with most things that the modern Democratic party does, but is very positive and nostalgic about the party in earlier decades, and still believes in a lot of its original purposes.
His main disagreements with the Republican party are over the hard-liners' unquestioning religious faith in and promotion of the free market, which he believes leads to a great deal of suffering in the world at large.
But to talk to him about a lot of the more visible controversial issues in American politics today, you would definitely presume that he is a Republican because of his positions in favor of the Iraq War, approving of George W. Bush's legacy, against gay marriage, etc. I assume that this is how Janis Ian got the impression that he is a Republican.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of older people in Wisconsin who are that way about the Repbulican party. They still think it is the party of Bob LaFollette.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting point of view he has Puppy. I was reading one of OSC's articles on the Mormon Times, and most of them are nice and snuzzly, but it bothers me that it seems like he doesn't want gays to have a piece of that warm happy family pie on their own gay terms. Do folks who are against gay marriage want gay folks to go back to closets, back alleys or parks and the like? To lead conflicted lives? I don't get it...Perhaps it's more the religious point of view that I don't totally understand, but from a secular standpoint...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Interesting point of view he has Puppy. I was reading one of OSC's articles on the Mormon Times, and most of them are nice and snuzzly, but it bothers me that it seems like he doesn't want gays to have a piece of that warm happy family pie on their own gay terms. Do folks who are against gay marriage want gay folks to go back to closets, back alleys or parks and the like? To lead conflicted lives? I don't get it...Perhaps it's more the religious point of view that I don't totally understand, but from a secular standpoint...
That's the disconnect that makes the stated position difficult to understand. If it is as Ian proclaims it, and OSC is perfectly willing and capable and actually *wants* to treat gays the way he has treated her, then what exactly is his beef with gay marriage? You have all the elements there already in practice, but the name isn't the same.
But OSC clearly doesn't support gay marriage, so obviously he feels there is something about it which is negative, which means that he ultimately feels that treating gays in *every single* way like ordinary married people is not acceptable. The question then becomes: where is the line drawn? Is it acceptable to treat these people in every way like a married couple, but simply deny them the legal or official recognition of the state? If so, this begs the question of why that restriction remains necessary. If he believes the restriction remains necessary, then of course we are compelled to wonder, for what purpose? On this point, the entire anti-SSM movement, but most particularly the anti-SSM movement that is not outspokenly anti-gay, is a tad inarticulate. We are given to believe that the granting of same sex marriage somehow changes or fundamentally alters the status of straight marriages. That would be an understandable position from someone who was also bigoted towards gays- but it breaks down when faced with someone who claims not to be bigoted.
It is not a "black and white," interpretation of someone's positions and attitudes to apply this set of questions to anybody who fights gay marriages, especially with such vehemence. These are real, as yet quite mysteriously unresolved questions that have been posed. If such respect and admiration and mutual understanding as Ian describes is real, which I have no reason to doubt, then why does it not extend to a belief in, or even a diplomatic silence on gay rights? OSC could have, at any time in the past twenty years, chosen to remain absolutely silent on the issue. Star Trek and Rick Berman managed to do so with very few people even taking notice. But instead he used his voice, and the words his spoke, I think anybody can appreciate, are difficult to rectify with stories like Ian's.
On this issue, I believe that OSC wishes to benefit from, but not himself extend the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. We as readers are meant to believe that OSC's character, as he portrays himself and as he prompts or persuades or simply causes others (like Ian) to portray him, is beyond question- his most public detractors are subject to bitter and ruthless denunciation. And so I feel we are meant to take the very best of his actions, as they can be presented, along with the most extreme of his political positions, and we are meant to work out by these pieces of evidence that he works to some greater purpose beyond our understanding. To deny that purpose is unquestionably above the level of simple xenophobia or homophobia or bigotry remains totally unacceptable- even as the actions he takes toward these purposes remain indistinguishable from those of people suffering from the above afflictions. Yet I feel there remains a need for caution in taking the word of someone who speaks so strongly on any point of basic moral principles, that his intentions are indeed pure. And in the face of so many sundry accusations and recriminations against half a world of people, many of them far from comprehensible in their aims or grievances, I remain totally unconvinced of the source those motivations. In fact I find the idea of the author as a rebel and iconoclast; a point of light and intelligence against a world of darkness -the image he so loves to employ himself- as more than enough, infinitely more than enough, to motivate this entire campaign, beyond the barest of actual ideological misgivings.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
posted
steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Yeah, that's not exactly polite....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If such respect and admiration and mutual understanding as Ian describes is real, which I have no reason to doubt, then why does it not extend to a belief in, or even a diplomatic silence on gay rights?
I really like your thoughts on the matter. Other posters have made reference to this 2004 article, but in re-reading it, I found some answers to your questions. OSC discusses many threats to marriage (abuse, divorce, teenage sexual activity, etc.) that previous posts wondered about. He expresses why his gay friends' sexual lives are not his business while simultaneously explaining why he believes gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage and the nation. It's a pretty clear summary of his views. He accepts gay people but doesn't believe that gay marriage is the right choice for America. Like you said, it's a very difficult line to walk.
He especially doesn't want a relatively small number of judges to make the decision for millions of Americans.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what about millions of Americans not wanting a handful of religious folks making these decisions? Everyone should get a slice of the warm pie of family and love and all of that good stuff.
And no, that's not a dirty metaphor. Folks need to share the cake, the pie instead of keeping it for themselves and not even letting anyone get a crumb.
Arg. That article annoys me so much! Does he realize, once again, that NOT EVERY MAN AND WOMAN THINKS THE SAME JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE! If two people think simularly, of course they can understand each other, despite beign members of the opposite sex because that's how it goes. Folks can understand each other if they explain things and communicate without expecting the other person to READ THEIR MINDS. Plus there's no mention of civilizations that have different concepts of marriage and family and how those thrive in their own way. OK. I will stop reading that article now because I am going on an irritable tangent and I didn't want to do that. But could folks PLEASE for the love of milk stop acting like everything fell apart and went bad after the 50s? That's not very realistic at all. These same sort of problems existed on the same level, or maybe worse to a certain extent. And he makes no mention of domestic violence and controlling relationships. Now that can REALLY damage a family.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:steven, what aspect of your non-conservative ideals makes you feel that ejecting people from communities and messing up their websites is the right response to disagreeing with their opinions?
Apparently the part that says proponents of conservative politics should be sabotaged.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief.
posted
I just don't understand why someone would be angered at the EXISTENCE of an opposing camp. I might get angry at some of the things they say. But I really value the fact that opposing viewpoints are allowed to flourish and get into open dialogue with one another in our society. I wouldn't trade that for the world.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
Steven, you continue to impress me! Well, I mean, not in a good way.
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: He especially doesn't want a relatively small number of judges to make the decision for millions of Americans.
And as I believe I pointed out when he wrote the article, or more probably when the California decision was made, the democratic process extends further than the simple majority. We have a series of roadblocks to constitutional amendment, and a certain amount of power vested in our courts and legislatures so that the public cannot rule unchecked. The actions of the Mormon church in that particular case were, if not anti-democratic, then at least counter to the spirit of real democracy. The religious groups who clustered around that issue preferred gross misrepresentation of the issues to a public that had too little access to or understanding of the consequences of the rulings that were made. Basically, what the Mormons and others said mostly by proxy), that those rulings meant was highly arguable at best, and genuinely misleading. OSC didn't parrot a lot of the nonsense, but he still stoked the fire of the idea of a miscarriage of the democratic process, which represented a fundamental misapprehension or misrepresentation of that process.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The entire reason I started posting here, under the alt "blunt sword", many moons ago, was because I wanted to sow seeds of discord and make this place unpleasant to post in. Why? The existence of Ornery really angered me beyond belief. An entire website devoted to conservative political ideals? There was no way I could eject OSC from my area (he moved to about 40 minutes away from me back in the early 80s, here in NC), and that aggravated me to no end. I could at least mess up his website, though.
In retrospect, how do you feel about what you attempted to do?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
If two people think simularly, of course they can understand each other, despite beign members of the opposite sex because that's how it goes. Folks can understand each other if they explain things and communicate without expecting the other person to READ THEIR MINDS.
