posted
Also, even while I don't necessarily agree that the absolute calls for boycotting here are justified, it is hard to argue with results. The gay lobby has made amazing strides in large part because it is becoming socially unacceptable to openly express anti-gay bigotry or the sort of lies and fear mongering that OSC does.
We've gotten to a place where things like adopting a pro-gay stance can be reasonably criticized as a political move. Compare that to Karl Rove's gay-baiting in the 2004 election - which, incidentally, OSC supported and aided.
Heck, the LDS church's prominent anti-gay stance and its close involvement with things like the bigoted, fear mongering campaign for Prop 8 have hurt it so badly that they are changing these aspects somewhat.
I don't believe you could achieve results like this with a moderate, judicial course. It is in large part because of things done in the spirit of this boycott that we've gotten here.
If they could be successful with this and cause OSC's projects to fail because of his morally poor anti-gay advocacy (and again, I don't think this is justified), isn't that better, both morally and for society?
I mean, the injustice done by the anti-gay people is orders of magnitude worse than if they could ruin people for anti-gay advocacy, isn't it? And we'd be better off as a society like that, wouldn't we?
Because, sure OSC doesn't really deserve to be ruined because of his writings and actions with NOM, but he sure as heck deserves it a lot more than gay people deserve the crap they have to put up with in large part because of people like OSC.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe you could achieve results like this with a moderate, judicial course. It is in large part because of things done in the spirit of this boycott that we've gotten here.
I have said this in regards to people arguing for the appeasement or courting of anti-gay elements:
quote:when you make this an issue of the utility of differing techniques, then challenging and demeaning the anti-homo as readily as one should challenge and demean racism wins, and abstaining from that challenging and demeaning in order to 'reach out' to the 'fence sitters' loses. The reason, as I elaborated upon, is simple: when you're trying to use either as an intending tactic to change popular attitudes, you get an extraordinarily minimal benefit from trying to respectfully court the "defense of marriage" crowd. They are not fence-sitters. They will not be swayed in large numbers.
They're not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society, where if instead you demean their discrimination and bigotry, it erodes conspicuously. By treating it as the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era (which I will submit and argue that it really is) and stigmatizing discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals (again, discriminatory attitudes which the Defense of Marriage movement is ultimately about), you cut off the intergenerational transmissibility of those attitudes.
Considering that anti-gay bigotry comes at great and measurable harm to queer folk, additionally, emboldening and preserving it in the name of respect comes at too great a cost to pay much attention to the reactionary complaints about reverse discrimination.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: That sounds remarkably like the reasoning most noble villains use in story books.
Also, courting and appeasement are not the only two options. You seem to have left out loving persuasion. You don't get to play with the fire of, "I'll do what is necessary to kill the weeds, even if that means scorching the earth." What kind of society is it that allows institutionalized bigotry of one kind to exist, at least until the other bigots are dead or silent, and then we lift the chains? All in the name of "They've already suffered enough, there's no way we're hurting their oppressors as much." As if everybody on one side of the issue is a victim, while everybody on the other is a oppressor.
I hate that people pretend anybody even keeps track of those ledgers. If I am injured by another person intentionally, I don't have some sort of "vengeance credit" built up that I am now justified in drawing from when I attack them.
I can see the people in my life who have been influenced on this issue by me. Do you have somebody you know you shamed into submission?
If supporters of same-sex marriage are allowed to laugh, taunt, shame, and exile their opponents from the public stage, then opponents are justified in acting the exact same away (aka bullying).
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, I'm sorry, but these folks equal the majority of society. Their religion is in the majority. Most politicians are Christian, and quite a few of them are anti-gay. So they do NOT have the right to claim they are being bullied when they are putting laws on the books against gays left and right. They SHOULD be ashamed. They should be ashamed for driving kids into suicide, for kicking out their children, for gay couples who don't have the same hospital visition rights straight married people get so they can't even see their partner one last time or make medical decisions. It's like all the folks who tormented my relatives about their race and having them whine that they are being bullied and oppressed because people don't like THEIR bullying and oppression.
Plus pointing out these problems ISN'T bullying. Folks have every right to go to whatever church they want to. There's no laws saying you HAVE to marry someone of the same sex, but laws can be created saying people of the same sex can't marry, or can be legally fired from their jobs in some places? No, sorry. Mormons and these other sects are NOT being oppressed here. They do NOT get to whine that they are being bullied because people are saying they don't want to put up with their crap anymore.
Plus, you have folks saying that gays destroy society. Gays, lesbians, bi and trans people are just supposed to nod their heads and go, we are destroying society so back into the closet for us? This is NOT going to happen. Even members of the Catholic church or the Mormon church or all of these other churches are leaving in droves because they see and understand the problem with this.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are not leaving the Mormon church "in droves" because of this issue. There is a slightly higher rate of people asking to be removed from Church rolls because of the Church's stance on SSM, but only among those who are already lapsed..
At least that's my understanding from the numbers I've seen.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also remember that while the LDS church was actively apposed to same sex marriage, it was also actively promoting equality in housing and employment for same sex couples in Utah. The church is and forever will be opposed to same sex marriage, but it is willing to defend same gender couples in other ways.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lapsed? No, chances are they are tired of the church's bull when it comes to this.
And give me an example of the church promoting equality in housing and employment, please because I feel skeptical like I always feel.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's just, they said they were TALKING to the church, not that the church was taking an active step in stopping discrimination. http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ And their website is so helpful. -_-
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: . . . please because I feel skeptical like I always feel.
You're not always skeptical.
You're skeptical of things that challenge your existing biases, and you uncritically accept things that confirm those biases.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: That sounds remarkably like the reasoning most noble villains use in story books.
Also, courting and appeasement are not the only two options. You seem to have left out loving persuasion. You don't get to play with the fire of, "I'll do what is necessary to kill the weeds, even if that means scorching the earth." What kind of society is it that allows institutionalized bigotry of one kind to exist, at least until the other bigots are dead or silent, and then we lift the chains? All in the name of "They've already suffered enough, there's no way we're hurting their oppressors as much." As if everybody on one side of the issue is a victim, while everybody on the other is a oppressor.
I hate that people pretend anybody even keeps track of those ledgers. If I am injured by another person intentionally, I don't have some sort of "vengeance credit" built up that I am now justified in drawing from when I attack them.
This is not about "vengeance." Nobody is being scorched-earthed, or destroyed, or killed like weeds. Gays and their allies are not looking to do the same thing to the anti-gay that the anti-gay have done and in many ways keep doing to them. If they were, I wouldn't support them. This is not counter-oppression. This is challenging, shaming, and eradicating toxic views that create great and measurable harm to gays. And like clockwork they respond to this as though they are suffering INJUSTICE.
so, a relevant quote, in response to those who cry INJUSTICE to those who are having their views shamed and marginalized because they shame and marginalize:
quote:that's the thing about civil injustices. When they shift, it's not a pendulum. This won't arc around and place homosexuals as a ruling caste of media and politics. We'll never have our day in the sun. We won't be allowed to shackle them and beat them through the streets while their friends and neighbors spit on them.
We'll just eventually enjoy similar rights, and try not to resent them for the hell they've put us through. We'll try our hardest not to hold every one like them personally responsible for whatever plight we've survived. We'll be the bigger man, and be honorable, and decent. And it will have cost us our troubled youth who couldn't make it to the other side. Our homes, our jobs, our parents and their love.
Every day is straight pride. Every day is Christian pride. And in the meantime, every night in Uganda is hell. Every day in the high school locker room is a powder keg. Every second is a silent prayer that our parents don't find out, that our friends will still love us, that our employers don't exercise their ability to ruin our careers and our landlords don't throw us out in the streets in twenty-nine states.
They tell us to get over it, but they won't stop putting it in our way. They tell us that we're just as bad as they are. Just as preachy or full of ourselves. Every time we speak out against their cruelty, it's shaming them. Every time we dodge their stones, we're oppressing them. Every time we remind them of our humanity, we're asking for special treatment.
/ edit
and hey synesthesia, you really utterly totally have no idea what you're on about.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
If they are using negative tactics, then yes, if they are not, then no. Because doing harm for the sake of good isn't justifiable. Wait a minute...that is not right. Because sometimes doing harm for the sake of good is justifiable. So, let's rephrase. Doing unnecessary harm for the sake of good is not justifiable. And bullying people into silence is not the necessary to win a moral argument, and note that promoting shame and bullying are not the exact same thing. At times promoting shame (of what should be a shameful belief) is a useful and productive tactic.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lapsed, in this case means members who haven't been attending church meetings for a while.
Can you link to the source where you got the notion that LDS members are leaving in droves?
You might find this interesting. 48% of respondents who lost their belief in the church cited treatment of homosexuals and the church's activity related to Prop 8 as a major factor.
Most people cited multiple factors, so it's probably not the sole issue for most people for whom its an issue, but, still, I think it's a pretty major issue.
(There are some challenges collecting data on this - but this is about the best data I've seen on why people are losing their faith in the church, and I think that's a pretty fair substitute for why people are leaving. It also comes up a lot in the ex-Mormon communities I lurk in.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No no no, Samp is fully justified in bullying because he is bullying the bad people.
I'm sorry, should a greatly impacted and persecuted minority or its allies be in any sense obligated to care about the hurt feelings of organizations and people who contribute to persecuting them? Would they like to consider themselves the wounded party?
If they are using negative tactics, then yes, if they are not, then no. Because doing harm for the sake of good isn't justifiable. Wait a minute...that is not right. Because sometimes doing harm for the sake of good is justifiable. So, let's rephrase. Doing unnecessary harm for the sake of good is not justifiable. And bullying people into silence is not the necessary to win a moral argument, and note that promoting shame and bullying are not the exact same thing. At times promoting shame (of what should be a shameful belief) is a useful and productive tactic.
This "but that's bullying! It's not right!" thing comes all way too close to being straight out of Derailing for Dummies, tbh:
quote:Because they’re angry about the treatment they undergo and because they are aggressive and persistent in wanting to see change happen, you can target this behaviour (remembering that it is unseemly for Marginalised People™ – they’re supposed to set an example at all times by being humble and long suffering) by suggesting it puts them on a par with the people and system that stigmatise, ostracise and target them every second of every day of their lives. This also suggests that reacting to such discrimination is totally unreasonable and out of proportion (they should just take their knocks!) and that has the benefit of indicating your ignorance to just how pervasive and constant this discrimination truly is.
posted
Am I shocked that you are so familiar with that particular work?
If you can't delineate between appropriate declarations that a view that oppresses people should be shameful and overt hostility in the form of bullying, then clearly I must be trying to derail the conversation. Or something. Blech.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If ignoring what I actually say and inventing whole cloth motivations for me makes you unhappy, you could always stop. Mind you, I'm only concerned with your happiness.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, these guys have a great way to avoid a boycott.
quote: We're retailers. We got into this business to sell more comics, not less. When we've donated to causes in the past -- animal shelters, Haiti disaster relief, etc. -- we've done so by selling comics and other items for a benefit. That's the first thing that occurs to us as retailers: What can we sell to do the most good? In this case, rather than decline to carry his comic, we wanted to sell Orson Scott Card's Superman comic and use the money to fund the Human Rights Campaign. That's just how we approached the problem of stocking a comic that stood to fund an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with which we disagreed.
quote:Originally posted by Bijoux regionaux point fr: OSC's problèm...
While I publicly condemn OSC's view's on SSM and homosexuality, I would never go so far as you have to assume he has a secret longing for little boys, and do not feel it is appropriate nor justified. Especially as your first and only post.
The next time someone says that the Bonzo fight scene in Ender's game is erotic I think I'm going to throat punch them. I read that book, and therefore that scene, several times before I ever saw anything about it on the internet. And the first time I heard someone saying that it was erotic I was so "WTF WTF WTF" about it... I mean, really? Sexuality was the last thing that scene brought to my mind. I really think that you can only view the scene in that way if you are inclined to think of it in that way.
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so I just discovered OSC in the last 6 months. I LOVE his writing. I am also very pro civil rights, and support gay marriage. I did not know that OSC had anti gay marriage views, and frankly, I don't care. In the books I've read, I've noticed that he always treated gay characters respectfully. (although he did show a lack of understanding when the scientist in the Shadow series got married so he could have kids.) Also, if I were to boycott his books, I would really be punishing myself. If OSC starts putting anti-gay stuff in his books, I will probably just stick to reading his early books. It is my understanding that Card is a church elder, and he probably has an obligation to his church which includes supporting whatever agenda that is. I forgive him for this! As long as he finishes his Ender, pathfinder, and gate thief series, I'm OK!
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bigmamaT: OK, so I just discovered OSC in the last 6 months. I LOVE his writing. I am also very pro civil rights, and support gay marriage. I did not know that OSC had anti gay marriage views, and frankly, I don't care. In the books I've read, I've noticed that he always treated gay characters respectfully. (although he did show a lack of understanding when the scientist in the Shadow series got married so he could have kids.) Also, if I were to boycott his books, I would really be punishing myself. If OSC starts putting anti-gay stuff in his books, I will probably just stick to reading his early books. It is my understanding that Card is a church elder, and he probably has an obligation to his church which includes supporting whatever agenda that is. I forgive him for this! As long as he finishes his Ender, pathfinder, and gate thief series, I'm OK!
Yeah, that's pretty much my exact position on this.
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about Anton myself recently - and I think it's an interesting portrayal. There certainly does seem to be a lack of exploration of the options available to someone like him, but Anton himself is a pretty cool character, and never seems like he's shamed or less of a person.
I also buy books and films from companies and authors that I profoundly disagree with on many very important issues - so I don't see why OSC should be different.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but that's just not a healthy system to push. Plus, if they are pushing gayness in that book as a way of limiting population, Anton was just having anonymous sex? So gay guys can't commit to each other and be apart of the web of life on their own terms? And does the woman he's marrying know about this? A woman deserves to be with a man who desires HER who doesn't have to force himself to get through sex thinking about dudes. There's a potential to cause a lot of heartbreak with a situation like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought Anton was simply just asexual hence his loneliness. Since it means there's virtually no one he is likely to understand.
If there's a god that would not allow for spirit children of same sex couples in the next life then I would consider such a god inherently evil and should be destroyed by a more just and virtuous god.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay is a different religious view just as atheism is. To attempt to stop gay marriage in this country's freedom of religious views would be equal to allow Catholics, Muslems or Jews to stop Mormons from getting married because of the allowance of some mormon groups to allow polygamy.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm more offended by how OSC can be so open minded in so many writings but be so blindly manipulated by religious fear in this regard. If it can seduce him then it feels that no one is safe. I dont even want to be around religion anymore. There like "the body snacthers" or something.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay is a different religious view just as atheism is.
...
no, being gay isn't a 'different religious view'
and atheism isn't a religious view. it's a non-religious view.
Umm what? To not believe in any gods IS very much so a religious view! To belive that homosexual is not a "sin" would be a religious veiw on what constitutes a "sin" and YES many homosexuals still believe in God, some of them are even priests.
Do you also belive that nonpartisan is not a political veiw? So i guess gaseous is not a "physical" state And how to explain plasma
Zero degrees IS a temperature and non-fat IS a "fat content"
Polytheism Monotheism Atheism If it was not a theistic view it would not have "theism" in it
Asexuality is a sex and by this law they could not marry another person born without sex organs. But since that does not include your family i guess you dont care about those few "insignificants"
posted
*edit... Sorry that sounds like a slam. I actually ment there are websites that explains subjuctive and objective veiw and arguements. It will shed alot of light on Understanding veiws that have been lost or muddled in current american culture by lazy wording and creative interpretation or wording to advertise and/or contractually confuse you as a buyer, employee or religious follower to obtain and retain your money. Or to keep you subservient to whomever is in a position of power
posted
For those that are unwilling to be logical here is the legal explanation: I have proven the 2 people of the same sex can copulate without being homosexual. Therefore they are not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" and any laws agaist them being married are by all means discriminatory by nature.
I'd further think that, in this light, most religons would find this unjustly judgemental and left to a higher power to decide.
If any groups wish to stop "homosexual marrige" all laws and arguements will need to be changed to reflect that distinction before any further logical debate can be made.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marcoudesept, you really must stop assuming you know so much about the views of your interlocutors without taking care to learn about them. As it is, you're embarrassing yourself.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are way too hard to follow. I don't even get an inch of how you are trying to explain, for instance, that gay is a religious view.
There's a possibility we're on the same page (I honestly can't tell because you are somewhat incomprehensible) but it's like you are asserting something like that atheism is a religion just as much as christianity is because it is a view about gods. That being "atheist" is a religious view just like being "monotheistic" is a religious view, because they both have the 'theist' part in it.
nah
like i've trotted out before, atheism is a religion like 'off' is a television channel
quote:Asexuality is a sex and by this law they could not marry another person born without sex organs. But since that does not include your family i guess you dont care about those few "insignificants"
what are you even talking about. do you mean, like, "asexuality is a sexual orientation"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's a personally held idea about religious matters.
??? How is that different than any other personally held ideas about religious matters? Doesn't have a book?
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is that different than any other personally held ideas about religious matters? Doesn't have a book?
Many religions don't have books, so no, it's not that.
For starters religions aren't "personally held ideas". They're a combination of descriptive concepts about the history and structure of the world; of prescriptions about how people should behave and written or unwritten laws; of traditions expressed in rituals, ceremonies, and holidays. Psychologically, the concept of "sanctity" is crucial to religions.
Atheism on the other hand: On the prescriptive front, it has no injuctions and no laws. On the descriptive front, it's a mere *lack* of belief in supernatural beings. Culturally, it has no traditions, no rituals, no ceremonies, no holidays and no holy sites.
When an atheist doesn't go to church every Sunday, it's not that they have a different religious tradition of *not* going to church. It's that they have no tradition relevant to churchgoing at all.
Atheism is an *absence*, not a thing by itself.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
