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.
So, when you agreed to uphold the forum rules when you registered, you were lying. Classy...
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
So true. That tends to frustrate me in his books at times too. Except for Lost Boys and Alvin because they had some nice marriages.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: The biggest problem I have with OSC's essays against gay marriage is that I have never once seen him mention simple love. He repeatedly claims that the only legitimate marriage is one that produces children and grandchildren -- he doesn't seem to lay any value on marriages that exist simply because two people are in love with each other.
IIRC Shedemei and Zdorab in the Homecoming series are in love with each other's personality, and intellectuality, but Zdorab is not physically attracted to her at all as he is a homosexual. They do talk about trying for children but Zdorab warns Shedemei that he might have to fantasize about former lovers in order to cooperate. Ultimately I was under the impression that their love was no less real than anyone else but that Zdorab never stopped being gay.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My own impression was that they were not in love at all, but formed a reasonable platonic friendship; then they 'married' - and I put that in scare quotes because this is not what a marriage should be - essentially because of peer pressure to produce children.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for that connection, BlackBlade. I haven't read Homecoming, but that's interesting. In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The kind of marriage I would think would come closest to causing OSC's fabeled 'downfall of civilization' would be the ones based solely on the desire to reproduce and no actual love whatsoever -- and that includes sexual love. A child raised in that household would have emotional scars for sure.
Children know when their parents are not in love, and no amount of "good role models" and structure in the household is going to make up for that. A same sex marriage in which both parents are completely in love is an infinitely better place to raise a child than one in which one parent is struggling to overcome homosexuality. OSC, of all people, should not underestimate what children can understand.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I agree with you on that Tara. It's like that Divorce book I read. I felt she underestimated children and how much they understand about the world around them. For example, not noticing how abusive their parent's relationship is. Kids need healthy parents who love and care about each other.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think you are both overestimating the fragility of children, there. People have grown up in some pretty nasty circumstances without apparently taking serious psychological damage of it; mere loveless marriages aren't so bad as all that. Human are not hothouse flowers that die with the slightest adverse change in environment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Honestly, I think you are both overestimating the fragility of children, there. People have grown up in some pretty nasty circumstances without apparently taking serious psychological damage of it; mere loveless marriages aren't so bad as all that. Human are not hothouse flowers that die with the slightest adverse change in environment.
I reckon, but to say that stuff doesn't affect a person though... I kind of does. There should be a bit of middle ground though in between Children are fragile! Put them in a bubble and children are resilient. Bouncing them up and down won't hurt them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The problem with placing high importance on sexual attractiveness in a relationship is that a person's level of sexual attractiveness almost inevitably declines with time and/or chance. If you believe that a marriage relationship should be a permanent commitment to love and care for a spouse and children, then it would be a poor choice to have that "love" depend on something as transitory as the spouse's hotness. What happens when you get old and wrinkly, or get cancer, or lose your hair? Sex is nice* and all that, but you gotta have something deeper than that to base a relationship on.
*as the mother of a newborn and an extremely active toddler, most of my bedroom fantasies involve not sex but an unbroken six hours of sleep. Followed by another twelve.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my experiene, it seems as though no amount of 'platonic friendliness' can equal the love you feel for someone that you are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to. Hence the immense difference between lovers and just friends... What is OSC getting at?
The problem with placing high importance on sexual attractiveness in a relationship is that a person's level of sexual attractiveness almost inevitably declines with time and/or chance. If you believe that a marriage relationship should be a permanent commitment to love and care for a spouse and children, then it would be a poor choice to have that "love" depend on something as transitory as the spouse's hotness. What happens when you get old and wrinkly, or get cancer, or lose your hair? Sex is nice* and all that, but you gotta have something deeper than that to base a relationship on.
*as the mother of a newborn and an extremely active toddler, most of my bedroom fantasies involve not sex but an unbroken six hours of sleep. Followed by another twelve.
Well, that is true, but suppose there were things that made a person sexy like their intelligence and not their long luscious hair or hips or something? Sexual attraction isn't everything, but it's sort of like eating food that tastes good. You know, not just ice cream and stuff but sweet nice fruit. It's part of it, not the whole thing, but without it things would be so bland and boring and mundane so it's sort of a combination of what you are saying and what Rakeesh and others are saying. The problem is also idealizing the past, let's face it, it wasn't perfect, marriage is probably a lot better now even with divorce and stuff because at least marriages are more equal, more about both partners instead of serving one. Kids probably get more attention, less physical punishment, that's always good. Heck, maybe even the sex is better, I wouldn't know. I've never lived in the past, but it's good that the attitudes have changed and the family has gotten better. I feel like these conservative groups don't realize the damage they are doing to families by trying to set back the clock. Maybe we're fine the way we are even if gay marriage was allowed. Plus people are STILL getting married too, even the folks that shack up eventually do that. Sometimes. More freedom is always a good thing, I think. And less strict gender roles mean more men spending time with their kids instead of children's fathers being distant and intimidating. Yes, they need to look at the good things about nowadays instead of thinking it's all bad. Even a lot of single parents do well, and it's better than various alternatives in most cases like adoption or fostercare. In most cases.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: as the mother of a newborn
Hey, congrats!
Yeah. I can't even wait to have babies! Which makes me sound all OSC-Y But they are soooooooo cute! with those little toes and fingernails
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
And it's funny -- when I had the first baby, dealing with an infant felt quite difficult. Now this new baby seems rather easy -- it's the toddler that's a handful. I don't know if this is because I now have more experience with infants, whereas the toddler stage is new and I'm still trying to figure it out -- or whether child #1 is just plain higher-maintenance. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:And less strict gender roles mean more men spending time with their kids instead of children's fathers being distant and intimidating.
The stereotypical father spending little time with his kids is a relatively modern phenomenon. Back when most folks were farmers, craftsmen, etc., there WAS no home-work divide, so you'd be working and still have the children with you all day. As soon as they were old enough, the kiddos would be helping daddy take care of the livestock or harvest vegetables or helping mommy churn the butter or card wool or feed the chickens or whatever.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'd really like to see is information about how many Mormons (or nonMormons) would actually support OSC's essays. I mean I know most of them are against gay marriage, how many of them would actually support him on statements such as:
quote: In my church and many other churches, people still cling fiercely to civilized values and struggle to raise civilized children despite the barbarians who now rule us through the courts.
The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.
And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.
Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I'm sorry to keep bringing up different issues, but I have so many issues with OSC at this point that I don't really know where to begin.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I've met several people who say they do, for a variety of reasons. For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
----------
quote:Back when most folks were farmers, craftsmen, etc., there WAS no home-work divide, so you'd be working and still have the children with you all day.
Even by the 1860s, that way of life was vanishing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I've met several people who say they do, for a variety of reasons. For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
So, is it the fact that OSC is aware of how silly and rhetorically flimsy that argument is that either a) doesn't believe in it, or b) doesn't claim to believe in it publicly? Because his stated objections at least make claims on being reasonable and falsifiable theories. That particular theory is not reasonable or falsifiable- and its invocation interests no one other than the believers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even by the 1860s, that way of life was vanishing.
The 1860s ARE relatively modern, from a historical perspective. And when it vanished depended on where one lived (rural vs. urban).
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
No, Orson Scott Card has stated very plainly that civilization itself is rooted in 'reproductive security' and that gay marriage upsets this reproductive security and itself threatens civilization. He asserts that marriage is necessary for civilization and that gay marriage will harm that and furthermore accuses the "fanatical Left" of attempting to drive it in through 'propaganda' in a way which will grievously unseat civilization. That a culture that reinforces heterosexual marriage and denies homosexual marriage is what keeps civilization in America alive, and that if you change this to allow homos to get married, the civilization present will be lost, broken down, collapsed.
Fittingly, he calls the people who advance this agenda "barbarians."
Literally his argument is that if we can't stop gay marriage, then "lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away."
It's very clear. It's very straightforward.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone besides OSC, however vehemently they oppose it, actually think gay marriage will cause the downfall of civilized society?
I think you're misunderstanding OSC's position by not reading carefully enough. I read his position as being that the "downfall of civilized society" will be caused not by gay marriage per se, but by the courts usurping the powers that belong to the legislatures and/or the people.
That would almost make sense.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also the surface complaint that sometimes acts as a kind of buffer for the fundamental beliefs that are actually guiding his thinking. First it's "the left is not representative of MY society, the courts have unfair influence," then it's simply "MY society is the only way that humanity will not perish from this Earth."
In a way OSC sometimes sounds a bit like a scientologist. It's a lot of "the only person capable of solving this situation is me," stuff.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For some Mormons to whom I've spoken (for example), they see it as the "last straw" that will cause God to remove His protections from America, thus leading to the destruction of the country.
Tom, I used to suspect that the Mormon associates you reference from time to time might be made up.
Now I'm guessing that your cadre of Mormons is probably a real group of three or four people hand-picked principally for the fact that they reinforce the stereotype you have of Mormons. Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you handpick a group for that purpose?
Heck, when discussing anecdotal wacky Mormon beliefs in particular, I always buzz Nauvoo to see if I can find the same opinion expressed there. If I can, I figure it's suitably mainstream to mention. In this case, nearly half the people on Nauvoo appear to agree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would you handpick a group for that purpose?
Quite easily. As long as we're speaking metaphorically. Literally, and some might respond poorly to your grabby hands.
quote:I always buzz Nauvoo to see if I can find the same opinion expressed there.
Of course, someone mentioning something doesn't necessarily make it mainstream. That said, a lot of mainstream ideas are rigidly if unofficially ensconced there, which is why I stopped posting a year or two ago. <murmurs something about "kicking" and "pricks">
I'm just noting that Mormons are less monolithic than you might think. Feel free to hit me up for an anarchist/pacifist/LDS viewpoint anytime.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite easily. As long as we're speaking metaphorically.
I think you'd need a fairly large pool of Mormon acquaintances.
quote:I'm just noting that Mormons are less monolithic than you might think.
Hey, I never said they were monolithic. I just offered that viewpoint up as one example of people who do in fact believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens the very fabric of the nation. Mormons made a good example only because the uniqueness of America is doctrinal for them, so you don't need to reach as far as you might for, say, Baptists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just looked at Nauvoo -- OSC is all OVER that place! Also, the forum looks JUST like Hatrack. Weird.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Also, the forum looks JUST like Hatrack. Weird.
Both use UBB.classic, which is abandonware and hasn't been supported since 2006, so it's vulnerable to scripting attacks these days. It's why, for the most part, you don't see it anywhere else.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize: A. The family is the basic unit of civilization B. Healthy families lead to healthy societies. Weak families lead to weak societies. C. Behavior which strengthens families should be encouraged. Behavior which weakens families should not be encouraged. D. The strongest families are headed by partners who love each other, respect each other as equals, and have made commitments to do so. E. Abuse of any kind, infidelity, broken covenants, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births weaken families. F. Unhealthy and unsafe marriages should be dissolved.
If you agree with these points, you have a lot of common ground with OSC.
Where opinions seem to differ is in this question: Is the strongest family for the health and continuation of society one with a mother and father or is the gender of parents irrelevant?
We may not know how mainstream acceptance of gay marriage will affect our families and society until it happens. Like OSC says, it's an experiment. In the face of uncertainty, people fall back on their own experiences and beliefs. Both sides are talking from very personal places, so there is a great need for patience and tolerance.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, those are true, but he mostly seems to think gender roles matter. I'm not sure if they do. They've changed and explanded so much, and that's a good thing because so-called traditional gender roles are a bit too limiting. Plus, as I said before, I haven't seen him do a whole entire column about the evils of emotional and physically abusive relationships, just mostly about gay marriage and its affect on society. Even in Children of the mind there was that obnoxious line that took me years to notice that irritated me deeply. Plus it's not just the family that is the basic unit of society, I think, but the individual. But how people are raised can affect society, especially when you read a book like The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog which talks about children and trauma and how it affects them and the rest of the world. Folks of his ilk definitely overlook how things like child abuse and spousal abuse are really destroying society. (and you can't tell me most of the stuff Dobson, a primary anti-gay marriage leader(?)advocates for raising children isn't abusive. I mean, come on, disciplining a child is one thing, but hitting a child until they totally submit to parental authority, doesn't that strike anyone else, as, well, wrong? Not to mention harsh? Why can't a parent just PUT a kid back in bed without hitting them? I don't understand this whole hitting kids thing.) They'd rather focus their attention on gay marriage, because again, it's easier to target. All sorts of respectable seeming people with heterosexual nuclear families could be dysfunctional behind the scenes, but no one would notice because on the surface they look "normal" and healthy just by being hegemonic. That doesn't mean that a family with a single parent isn't healthier JUST because there's a single parent. They could be just as attentive and kind towards their children as a straight couple...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put another way, there are two readings of F. The first one, which I agree with, is that people in unhealthy and unsafe marriages should choose to dissolve their marriages. I agree with that.
Another reading of F, which I disagree with, is that its our business to forcibly dissolve unhealthy marriages if the married couples don't want that to happen. That seems absurd.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize: A. The family is the basic unit of civilization
You are gliding over the major difference between a major point of contention: are gay couples and the children they raise families? The LDS church position is quite clear: they are not, and I'm pretty sure that OSC agrees with them.
So to say we all agree on that point is completely misleading.
quote:B. Healthy families lead to healthy societies. Weak families lead to weak societies. C. Behavior which strengthens families should be encouraged. Behavior which weakens families should not be encouraged.
How does one define "weak"? Or "strong"? Is a family where a father can exile or kill his kids for disobedience a weak family, or a strong one? Is a family where a gay child is deathly afraid of being found out and rejected for wanting to live his life honestly a strong family or a weak one?
quote:D. The strongest families are headed by partners who love each other, respect each other as equals, and have made commitments to do so.
I think you are going to have to show some evidence for the "love each other" part, becuase romantic love is awfully hard to find in OSC's essays. What I see a lot of is evolutionary imperatives, and social duty. No love.
quote:F. Unhealthy and unsafe marriages should be dissolved.
I'm going to have to see some OSC quotes for this too, because I don't get this from OSC at all.
quote:Where opinions seem to differ is in this question: Is the strongest family for the health and continuation of society one with a mother and father or is the gender of parents irrelevant?
I don't think that's quite the issue. The issue is "Is it okay for people to form families that fail to match up to OSC's definition of strongest? Or should we put legal roadblocks in their way to discourage that and punish people who do it anyway?"
quote:We may not know how mainstream acceptance of gay marriage will affect our families and society until it happens.
I think you've got a hard argument to make if you think that the outcome is that difficult to predict. Gay people are already coupling up, and already sharing their lives to the extent that the laws allow, and already raising children, with the legal protections that the laws currently allow. It's not going to be drastically different once the full suite of legal family protections are in force.
quote:Both sides are talking from very personal places, so there is a great need for patience and tolerance.
I completely see why a gay person whose family is being concretely and directly harmed by current laws is talking from a personal place. I fail to see why a person who wants those laws to stay as they are, and who will suffer no harm at all from them being changed has a right to take things just as personally.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And should a marriage be illegal just because it isn't optimal? Do all marriages have to be perfect? Or is there a point where, in our struggle to create perfect family situations for every child, we encroach on peoples' rights?
I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family." But the idea that someone is anti-family just because they support gay marriage is ridiculous. A family, to me, is a group of people who live together, love each other, support each other, and (most of all) sacrifice for each other. And I don't see why the word "family" has to have a tighter definition than that -- even when we're dealing with raising children.
As I believe has been said before, I don't believe children are so fragile that they're going to grow up emotionally destroyed because they didn't have a proper mother role model or a proper father role model. People are smarter than that. Your father and your mother are not the ONLY men and women you see in the world.
I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views. You can come up with as many arguments as you want for anything. I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
I find that OSC makes statements in his arguments against gay marriage that he would NOT make in other situations. Like that no one except a mom, a dad, and children is a proper family. But hasn't he himself said that the reason we like Firefly and Serenity so much is because of the FAMILY? (Granted, the crew of Serenity is not trying to raise a child -- but if they were, would it be such a terrible thing?) Does he really think that less than 10% of the population being allowed to remain in the same relationships they are in already, only with different legal status, going to mess up a generation of kids so much that civilization will be seriously harmed? I don't want to make any accusations, but the cynic inside me is rearing its head.
Oh dear, I went to edit this for typos and then just started adding more. Sorry.
quote:I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
Do you regularly sit down and accuse yourself of a bunch of laughable or nefarious motives you don't have?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grinwell: I think the core of OSC's beliefs is something many people can agree on. Here's another attempt to summarize:
I'm completely confused on F and I don't know how it fits into any of this. People should be at liberty to dissolve marriages, particularly when the couple no longer loves each other. F suggests By Force in a way which would necessarily apply to het marriage and uh I do not see it suggested anywhere so.
In addition, yeah, like has been said, A through F tries to breeze past the α through ω of the whole argument; we could agree on all points rendered and still find someone violently wrong with the idea that people who support and are attempting to make gay marriage real in America are barbarians.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
Already happened. Read the LDS statements on gay marriage. They are quite specific...all relationshps that aren't man-woman marriage undermine families. And the LDS church claims they are willing to support civil rights...so long as those don't undermine families.
I bet you can find other such statements in other places, but I know that the LDS statemetns are phrased like that.
And there were plenty of bumper stickers reading "Yes on 8: Protect Families"
quote:I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views.
My guess is that it's not religious...the Bible is plenty specific about divorce, and no one seems to think that spending millions of dolalrs passing anti-divorce legislation is what's called for. Gay marraige calls traditional gender roles into question, and more broadly, any time a slightly different lifestype is considered legitimate and okay, it becomes that much more likely that people won't automatically hold the prevailing way of life as unquestionable and innately superior.
As for frantic arguments, the latest conservative argument I read...someone saying that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed if there's even a chance that straight black men will be less likely to marry because of it.
quote:But hasn't he himself said that the reason we like Firefly and Serenity so much is because of the FAMILY? (Granted, the crew of Serenity is not trying to raise a child -- but if they were, would it be such a terrible thing?)
I thought I read something of his where OSC was saying that biological families are different and better, and the constructed family of friends that you see on TV and movies often presented as a substitute really aren't the same. But I don't have the quote now.
quote:Does he really think that less than 10% of the population being allowed to remain in the same relationships they are in already, only with different legal status, going to mess up a generation of kids so much that civilization will be seriously harmed?
I think he sees it as the last stand between selfish hedonism and the society/family first moral duty that he thinks should be primary. Apparently, OSC doubts that enough people genuinely want to marry people they love and have children that they look forward to raising to keep civilization afloat. Therefore, we need a lot of stick and a lot of carrot to make it happen.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote I was referring to in F. above was from an essay that touched on the negative influences of divorce. OSC mentions that some marriages should be dissolved, for example in cases of abuse and where children are not safe. I don't think he meant dissolved forcibly by a third party, but by the married couple's own choice. Sorry if I confused anyone.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wish those who oppose gay marriage would sit down and ask themselves, "Would I still oppose gay marriage if I wasn't religious? If a 1000+-year-old document written by ancient and backward societies said homosexuality was bad? Or if I wasn't afraid of change and people different from myself? Or if I wasn't struggling with the legitimacy of my OWN marriage?"
Do you regularly sit down and accuse yourself of a bunch of laughable or nefarious motives you don't have?
Does religion effect people's social beliefs? Maybe yes or maybe no, but the question certainly isn't "laughable or nefarious".
Are people afraid of change and others different from themselves? Umm... yes. I know I am, although I try not to be. I'm pretty sure most people are to a degree, some more than others.
My last point was simply referring to couples who are maybe considering a divorce, or homosexuals who chose to marry heterosexually. Which certainly happens.
So I don't really get your point.
EDIT: Oh and Puppy, I apologize for the part about the Bible -- in retrospect, that was too extreme and I would remove it. I don't mean to show disrespect to any religion -- I'm simply trying to gauge the different influences at work here. The rest, I still stand by.
quote:Originally posted by Tara: I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
Already happened. Read the LDS statements on gay marriage. They are quite specific...all relationshps that aren't man-woman marriage undermine families. And the LDS church claims they are willing to support civil rights...so long as those don't undermine families.
I bet you can find other such statements in other places, but I know that the LDS statemetns are phrased like that.
And there were plenty of bumper stickers reading "Yes on 8: Protect Families"
I had a feeling it had already happened, but I hope it doesn't become as common as "pro-life"/"pro-choice".
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:I strongly suspect that gay marriage has been singled out for condemnation by OSC and many others -- for reasons that they do NOT admit to, whether they be personal or religious -- and they are now scrabbling frantically for as many arguments as possible to support their views.
My guess is that it's not religious...the Bible is plenty specific about divorce, and no one seems to think that spending millions of dolalrs passing anti-divorce legislation is what's called for. Gay marraige calls traditional gender roles into question, and more broadly, any time a slightly different lifestype is considered legitimate and okay, it becomes that much more likely that people won't automatically hold the prevailing way of life as unquestionable and innately superior.
Traditional gender roles is a good way to put it -- I guess that's what I meant by "personal".
The infinite sensitivity (in any species) regarding the differences between male and female is surely a lot of what is fueling this argument.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh and Puppy, I apologize for the part about the Bible -- in retrospect, that was too extreme and I would remove it. I don't mean to show disrespect to any religion -- I'm simply trying to gauge the different influences at work here.
This is pretty curious as apologies go.
"I didn't mean to show disrespect...but I still stand by the other stuff I said." That seems to read, "I didn't mean to express the disrespect I feel."
quote:Maybe yes or maybe no, but the question certainly isn't "laughable or nefarious".
The questions you wished opponents of SSM would ask themselves certainly are laughable or nefarious, or in some cases both. I'll `splain.
'If I weren't religious'. Well, since in most cases (IMO) religion is the foundation of opposition to SSM, what you're really asking is, "If I didn't believe I should be opposed to this, would I still be opposed to it?" That's a silly question.
'Ancient and backwards societies'. This is silly as well, since religious opposition to SSM goes quite a bit futher than, "These old dead dudes say it's bad." Seriously, Tara, that's pretty much a textbook example of a straw man.
'Afraid of change and people different from me'. This is nefarious, insofar as it's generally considered bad to be afraid of change for its own sake, and for people different from one's self-even though pretty much everyone is afraid of just those things, it's only the flavors and intensities and how much we allow those things to dominate us that change.
'Struggling with my own marriage'. This is both laughable and nefarious, or at least a bad-faith argument. For one thing, "Well your marriage is probably a sham too!" is laughable as an argument...and insinuating that legitimacy concerns with one's own marriage is a component of opposition to SSM, that's a bad-faith argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a prediction for the future: soon those who support gay marriage will be commonly called "anti-family" and those who oppose it will be "pro-family."
That's not so much a prediction of the future as it's a postdiction of the last ten years or so. James Dobson's made a mint with that strategy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is pretty curious as apologies go.
"I didn't mean to show disrespect...but I still stand by the other stuff I said." That seems to read, "I didn't mean to express the disrespect I feel."
I'm sorry, but I really don't consider the other things I said to be disrespectful.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The questions you wished opponents of SSM would ask themselves certainly are laughable or nefarious, or in some cases both. I'll `splain.
'If I weren't religious'. Well, since in most cases (IMO) religion is the foundation of opposition to SSM, what you're really asking is, "If I didn't believe I should be opposed to this, would I still be opposed to it?" That's a silly question.
But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Ancient and backwards societies'. This is silly as well, since religious opposition to SSM goes quite a bit futher than, "These old dead dudes say it's bad." Seriously, Tara, that's pretty much a textbook example of a straw man.
Again, I apologize. I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
'Afraid of change and people different from me'. This is nefarious, insofar as it's generally considered bad to be afraid of change for its own sake, and for people different from one's self-even though pretty much everyone is afraid of just those things, it's only the flavors and intensities and how much we allow those things to dominate us that change.
But the fear still...exists.... I don't understand... I'm not saying this is one of the arguments.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
'Struggling with my own marriage'. This is both laughable and nefarious, or at least a bad-faith argument. For one thing, "Well your marriage is probably a sham too!" is laughable as an argument...and insinuating that legitimacy concerns with one's own marriage is a component of opposition to SSM, that's a bad-faith argument.
I was suggesting it as a subconscious influence rather than a good-faith argument.
And if you'd like to sikow-analyze me back, be my guest.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, but I really don't consider the other things I said to be disrespectful.
Clearly-doesn't change that they were, though.
quote:But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
Ahh, now that's a different question. Not the one you originally asked, I might add. Speaking for myself, no, I don't think it's appropriate for religion to interfere in secular practices such as SSM.
quote:Again, I apologize. [Roll Eyes] I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense?
I'm not saying you should (or shouldn't) have edited it out. I'm just saying it's a strange apology: "I'm sorry I said this stuff. I still believe it all and stand by it, though." Just seems strange to me. What exactly were you sorry for? An open expression of your opinion? Having the opinion at all? Or just telling people who didn't agree about it?
quote:But the fear still...exists.... I don't understand... I'm not saying this is one of the arguments.
It certainly seemed to me that you were suggesting that this is one of the arguments, or at least reasons, people opposed are opposed. I don't see how that changes the question being nefarious and laughable.
quote:I was suggesting it as a subconscious influence rather than a good-faith argument.
That's still both laughable and bad-faith, and your suggestion that it is a reason some folks are opposed to SSM is an argument, an argument you're making.
I'm not psychoanalyzing you back. You started that, remember?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is it appropriate for religion to interfere in such issues as SSM? Especially when not all of the people effected are of said religion?
Ahh, now that's a different question. Not the one you originally asked, I might add. Speaking for myself, no, I don't think it's appropriate for religion to interfere in secular practices such as SSM.
It is the same question. I was requesting that people try to look at their opinions of SSM out of the context of religion.
As for the rest of the post, I can't quite sort out what we don't understand about each other, and frankly, I don't feel like it. If that means you win, than so be it.
I was suggesting various things that might influence opposition to SSM besides what people are conscious of. That's all.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I got carried away. Is it worse to leave the offensive thing IN the post, or edit it out so later posts don't make sense? 
