posted
Come on. It was WAY better than Jack Chick. You're striking low now, Ryuko
Banna, your point has merit. When I initially read the essay, my reaction was much like Jenny's ... it was a powerful statement of a set of ideas that one rarely hears, and it was written very well. It was refreshing to find someone that could discuss some of my own sociological concerns without hedging or shame. Parts of it hurt, but it felt like the hurt of stretching a muscle that has fallen into disuse. When I talked to him about it, he was genuinely concerned that feelings would be hurt, and people might really dislike him after reading it ... but he felt like it was something he couldn't leave unsaid.
My own feeling is that offenses pass, while major social decisions endure. If Card's essay contributes to a course correction in our society, and we find the compromise that David Bowles, Hobbes, myself, and others are looking for, then it was a Making, as much as Arthur Stuart's temporarily-painful baptism was a Making.
As a culture, we have become far too focused on the act of offending as the ultimate evil, and it gets in the way of our ability to communicate. Personnally, I'm pretty good at finding ways to avoid offense, but when one side in a argument used their own offendability as a passive-aggressive weapon in the debate, at some point, someone is going to have to smash that barrier and get a real conversation started. It won't be me any time soon, but I can't fault the one who does it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We give married folks a tax break and we subsidize their insurance benefits because we hope they are in the process of raising future productive generations, and we want to lend them a hand.
If gay couples want to raise children then we should help them as well by offering them the same marriage benefits.
It is not in our nation's interest to offer marriage tax benefits or insurance subsidies to any other sort of couple who is not demonstrating an interest in raising children. In my mind they're no better or deserving than single folks, living the single lifestyle.
I think we should attach the tax and insurance benefits to the children and not to the adults. Tax all adults equally, married or not, unless there are dependant children involved.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok- they did it with a deadline. Which seems more like an ultimatum. And I've been replying to you. Bok and stalk. They rhyme.
OSC outright calls on the masses to unmake an America they don't approve of, to unmake a society ruled by "barbarians." I don't think he'd quibble with you calling him an unmaker. Just as he would call for unmaking a society that embraced slavery.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt he was genuinely concerned about peoples' feelings when he made up that molesting "deep dark" secret crap. OSC has written some great fiction, but he's just as much of a bigot as any KKK member.
posted
I've noticed that now that "homophobic" has been proven, over and over, to be a ridiculous taunt, the favorite invective of choice for those who do not wish to deal with issues and prefer to simply hurl names is now "bigot."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A practical concern about homosexuals having children is that our healthcare system is already strained. With the graying of the baby boomers underway, healthcare rationing is an ugly possibility. So I wouldn't be in support of diverting resources to IVF and reproductive cloning. But if they want to adopt unwanted children, it could conceivably be a boon to society. Strained = healthcare going from 5% of the GNP to 17% of the GNP
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: you would not believe the mental acrobatics I go through trying not to be offensive when bringing up my own concerns
See, my brain just doesn't have the skill, balance, and poise of an acrobat. Mine is more like Ogre from revenge of the nerds. Good at falling down and breaking things, but not much else. So if we shadows have offended, think but this and all be mended, that you have but slumbered here, whilst these visions did appear.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: odouls, s^^t is offensive to me. See, there is cloaking nastiness in politeness, and there's plain crudeness. Neither is the road not taken
Not sure, what this sentence is getting at exactly, but sorry if my language offended you. I'll edit that post.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lesbians have less trouble, for fairly obvious reasons. But I believe there are more male homosexual couples. But I don't know what the proportions are on how many would want to get married if it weren't for the need to do a political demonstration.
Part of what OSC was saying is that men tend to fear marriage, whereas women desire it. You also have many many more lesbian couples who already have children seeking marriage.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still respect the man, and his craft and skill in that craft. That is not affected by him expressing his opinions.
It is affected, though, by an undercurrent I read, *felt*, when I read the essay. The man is entitled to his opinion, and I respect his right-and indeed his skill-in presenting it. Nonetheless, as someone who frequently agrees with him, I can't help but express my opinion too, that the essay was at least partially motived by derision, contempt, and something close to bigotry.
I don't know if it's towards forces in our culture today assaulting larger values and taking on bigger issues that homosexual marriage (incidentally, I do think there are such groups, but I don't think their agenda is secret).
I personally agree that the Mayor has overstepped his power, and that willy-nilly piecemeal legal endorsement of homosexual marriage isn't the way to go. That's because judicial activism (or mayoral activism, heh) is only OK when it's a decision you support. I am undecided on issues of whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to raise children-although I lean towards a 'yes' answer on that issue. I don't even think that simple opposition to homosexual marriage makes one a bigoted homophobe.
But I still felt that there were really nasty undercurrents in Card's essay. I can't say whether or not it was directed towards homosexuals or larger anti-conservative social value groups, but I'm frankly suspicious that it was at least partially towards homosexuals as a group. I cannot imagine that OSC would speak this way to a homosexual in directly and specifically.
I don't know. I remember reading Songmaster more than once, and I forget the character's name. A homosexual man who loved Ansett and the female protagonist (Kya Kya?). I'm not good with names but I remember the story very well. Despite his not coming to a good end at all, I still think OSC treated him (the homosexual man) with respect as a human being. He was a person, worthy of respect. He was loved and loved others. He had honor and intelligence. He wasn't a caricature by any means, he was a character who was defined not by his homosexuality (among other percentages), but by what sort of man he was. I came off the book-numerous times-thinking that Josif (was that his name?) was a good man, a man I'd feel grateful to know and happy to call a friend. I can't recall if I read that before reading Card's opinions on political-social issues, but I can certainly say that if I knew Card disapproved of Josif's lifestyle when he wrote that, it didn't seem to affect his evaluation of Josif as a man and a human being. That's what I took from that book, about this particular character and issue.
When I read this essay, and other essays on the subject, I don't get that impression anymore. Far from it. Don't know you very well, Karl, but I think you're a kinder man than me. I'm angry and disappointed enough as it is, a straight man disagreeing on a political and social opinion, having only met perhaps a half-dozen (that I know of) homosexuals in my life. I say you're a kinder man than me because in your situation, I think, I wouldn't feel depressed or betrayed or greatly hurt, I'd be furious. Just thinking about the essay now is getting me pretty pissed off. I'm sorry you've taken a shot to the chin like this, Karl.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt he was genuinely concerned about peoples' feelings when he made up that molesting "deep dark" secret crap.
Geoff said earlier that much of what OSC had written was with the experience of seeing homosexual friends struggle with their sexual preference. Is it not possible that the "deep dark secret" could spawn from those experiences?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "deep dark secret" part is utterly irrelevant. If someone is sexually molested in a heterosexual fashion, and they grow up to be a heterosexual, is their heterosexuality spawned from a deep, dark secret?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, for what it's worth, I can say with absolute confidence that Card's anger and zealousness was NOT motivated in any way by bigotry towards homosexuals. As far as I can tell, this essay is no different from the dozens of others he has written attacking elitists who try to force their views and opinions down his throat. He is expressing contempt for the ideas and the people that hawk them, regardless of their sexuality. If he is angry at anyone, it isn't gays, but social liberals.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what the proportions are on how many would want to get married if it weren't for the need to do a political demonstration.
I don't think it's so much about sex and politics as it is about money.
Like so many other issues that we've seen debated, if you take the money away, the issue goes away. Find a way to apply the money where it really belongs: with the next generation of Americans that we are trying to raise. Do that, and the rest of the silly couples lined up around the courthouse will go home.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've noticed that now that "homophobic" has been proven, over and over, to be a ridiculous taunt, the favorite invective of choice for those who do not wish to deal with issues and prefer to simply hurl names is now "bigot."
Or the person might actually be a bigot and someone who is equally bigoted doesn't want to deal with the fact. *shrug*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Edit: Okay, I missed that that the above was a different person, not harping from the same person. I now apologize and change the above eye-rolling to a noogie. It's Hatrack. I should have known better.
posted
See, in my head I believe you, and tend to agree with you in fact.
But here's the thing. Card is an excellent writer, a powerful communicator. I believe he is entirely capable of being far more persuasive than he is, in my opinion, being while at the same time being less insulting-as I feel he's being.
In short I think he could make the point you're saying he's making, without leaving this bad taste in my mouth and without pissing me off. So I'm left to wonder a few things. One of them Olivet mentioned: does he want to seperate the issues, or does he want someone like me pissed off when I read his writing? Is he just angry and shooting from the hip? Or is the bad taste in my mouth an accurate reflection of intent?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tolerance is not the fundamental virtue, to which all others must give way. The fundamental virtue is to love the Lord with all our heart, might, mind, and strength; and then to love our neighbor as ourself. Despite all the rhetoric of the hypocrites of homosexuality about how if we were true Christians, we would accept them fully without expecting them to change their behavior, we know that the Lord looks upon sin without the least degree of tolerance, and that he expects us to strive for perfection.
I can respect that view. You have every right to believe that homosexuality is the most sinful thing since witchcraft. But please do not insult my intelligence with some ill-conceived arguments about homosexuality's "dark secrets" and the liberal hidden agenda to undermine the American way of life as we know it.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* I have to admit I don't like laying out opinions and reccomendations, but not using the real reasons. I know the reasons for it (i.e. audience), but I don't like it. I don't like it when Paul does it either.
Added: Or Bush with his war. Or those advocating societal acceptance for homosexuality but hiding behind "what if the kid's in the hospital."
quote:I think the "deep dark secret" part is utterly irrelevant. If someone is sexually molested in a heterosexual fashion, and they grow up to be a heterosexual, is their heterosexuality spawned from a deep, dark secret?
See, there's the problem. Heterosexuality is caused by millions of years of natural selection and the need of genes to promulgate themselves. Male humans typically want to mate with female humans, and vice-versa, because if they didn't, our species would have vanished eons ago.
Homosexuality faces a unique challenge, because it lacks this solid foundation of reasoning to explain its existence. There are as many opinions as people as to the specific causes of homosexuality, not all of them attractive to homosexuals themselves. These divergent opinions, however, are the very core of this disagreement, and the fact that we cannot address all of the possibilities without starting a shouting match seriously impedes the discussion.
What if, for instance, science somehow "proved" that the majority of cases of homosexuality did seem to be caused by early-childhood abuse? What, if anything, would that mean? Would the fact that it was offensive mean that we would have to pretend it wasn't true, to preserve the feelings of the victims? Or would it be better for us to confront such an idea head-on and learn to deal with it?
I'm certainly not claiming that this is the case ... I am only trying to demonstrate how this focus on offensiveness comes into conflict with the interests of true understanding. If we decide at the outset that an idea (such as evolution, for instance) is offensive and should never be spoken, then how are we ever to establish whether or not it is true?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren and kat, Card is more rigorous about his faith than some other religious folk. He believes that God doesn't make commandments on a whim, without reason, and so he seeks to understand the reasons, basing his beliefs as often as possible on provable foundations, rather than on the potential whimsy of faith.
So while he might use religious arguments to persuade the faithful, when he moves into the secular realm and switches to secular arguments, that doesn't mean he is using "fake" arguments to mask the dark truth of his religion. If anything, those secular arguments are closer to reality for him than the religious ones.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Much better to have someone mad at you for your opinions than for your feelings, your race, your heritage, or anything else you have little control over. At least you can be proud of earning it Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to take a break from my OSC bashing and give Dog some props. He has certainly been placed in a tough position and has handled it as well as anyone.
(I had a snide comment about how I think Dog is heroically well-adjusted, but I'll save that for the day I'm banned from this forum )
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks a lot, Beren, and everyone else who's said kind things to me during this process. I only hope my boss doesn't find out how much effort I'm expending on this, rather than on the gameflow document I'm supposed to be writing ... Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Deep dark secret thing also puzzled me. But even if it is the case, it's not a reason to disallow them to raise children as a lot of folks were subject to abuse as children. Though disallowing them to raise children was not his aim either.
I think a lot of folks are gay because people of their own gender are easier to get along with. But OSC also implied this in the beginning of his argument. Men loving men and women loving women is not an achievement of civilization.
The "disease" he kept referring to is the promotion, by the entertainment industry and the Ivory Tower, that non traditional family structures are superior (not merely as good as) traditional family structures. While I'm not expert in evidence they are worse, I don't think there is evidence they are better.
I think the traditional family is more than a fundamental unit of society. I think society exists to serve the traditional family. But that's my religious belief.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Come on. It was WAY better than Jack Chick. You're striking low now, Ryuko.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought OSC was worse than Jack Chick. YUK. Nothing of the sort. I just meant that when I was reading the essay, I couldn't help but think of the arguments that Chick and people who think the way he does make. It doesn't help that I showed some friends a few of the more humorously offensive tracts last night...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much has been made of the harmful effects of allowing homosexuals to marry. What about the benefits?
Whatever you think of them, whatever you think of their origins, I submit that we will always have a percentage of homosexuals in our society. Why not offer a way for them to form lasting bonds with each other? Why not allow them to adopt, especially since we're not exactly hurting for parentless kids? It's not like they're going to go away any time soon.
Why not let them pair off? If anything the level of promiscuity among homosexuals should go down.
I perceive human sexuality as a spectrum. The bulk are heterosexual. A few are incredibly heterosexual. Some are homosexual. Some are bi. People may move back and forth on this spectrum throughout their lives, most may stay perfectly still. A few even have no sex drive whatsoever, a condition which must surely be more offensive to "Nature" than any other as there is no chance for progeny at all. I don't especially care whether a person's position on this spectrum is genetic or learned or chosen or caused by what color booties they were given at the hospital.
I see gay people being told their love is less than it should be, that they cannot parent as well as anyone else. I also see straight people abusing and mocking marriage, and doing everything they can to avoid having to personally raise their kids, and I wonder why we would hold gay people to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. Why are gays being prevented from marrying because they can't match the ideals that most straight marriages can't match? I mean, these are people who consider marriage such an important thing that they are willing to risk public embarrassment, censure, picketing, and social estrangement to get it. These are people who treasure children so highly that they'll adopt the kids others don't want.
I can certainly see how permitting people to form lasting, committed relationships will threaten straight marriage. But do you know what I think is a bigger threat to straight marriage?
"The Littlest Groom." The constant reinforcement of the notion that any marriage without "the spark" is dead. The trophy wife. The romanticising of adultery. "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance." Poverty levels that don't acknowledge the rising costs of housing, one of the contributing factors of the now-mandatory two-income family. "Married by America." The loss of the extended family due to urbanization and social change. "The Bachelor." Brittney Spear's 52 hour wedding. The concept of "irreconciliable differences" being applied to anything at all. The glamourizing of celebrities and their multiple divorces.
Letting a couple of guys sign a paper and kiss in front of a clerk doesn't bother me nearly as much as "Joe Millionaire" did.
[ February 24, 2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame or condemn Card for his views or his manner of expression of them. His opinion, his right to say it, and I can see in his words the desperation of a man seeing something he loves being destroyed for trivial reasons without respect or consideration for others. How can you fault a man who sincerely fears for his country and his children's future and uses his considerable abilities to save them?
I don't agree with him, and some of his opinions sadden me more than I can say, but I can still respect him.
[ February 24, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Points to Geoff and Karl, as has already been said.
I'm not going to weigh in on the homosexuality issue or on the homosexual marriage issue, though. I have just one tangentially related thing to say:
I generally don't like editorials, or editorial writing. I feel that they polarize debate rather than fostering it. I will again draw the analogy to Bowling for Columbine, which I disliked because of Michael Moore's overuse of sensationalist tactics. Someone who opposes gun control is not going to rethink their position after seeing BfC; nor will someone who favours it do so. Like editorial writing, BfC did not foster reasoned debate, it polarized it and shoved the two sides further apart.
I think the first few pages of this thread show fairly clearly that this column has more or less done the same thing for this debate. IMO, if it was a calmly worded essay, rather than a piece of editorial writing, there wouldn't be so many hurt posters here today.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pronounce Bok with the 'o' sounding liek 'boat'. I could be wrong tough, since the name itself is in a fictional dialect
It's standard operating procedure to have a deadline, in this case 6 months. The reason being, those that have been affected negatively by the conflict of law and constitution ought not have to wait for the affects of the reconciliation any longer than necessary for the laws to be reconciled. This is the case regardless of what constitutional issue is ruled on.
Once the law is found unconstitutional, the onus is (rightly, IMO) on the legislature to rectify the law as soon as possible.
But seriously, I'm sorry if anything I said hurt anybody's feelings. I never intended any personal attacks, (and I really don't think I leveled any), but if it felt that way to Geoff or anybody, I'm sorry.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it really interesting, too, to see the generational divide - many of the "older" folks who have raised their families fall into OSC's camp, and many of us "younger" ones take a more liberal view. I wonder if it has anything to do with an age perspective.
Are you sure, Jenny? I am not sure it divides up so neatly as you think...
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, so what if OSC is drawing on his experiences with gays? He would then projecting that narrow experience onto the whole of them. It's called stereotyping.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*read the whole thread* The article still stings me.. it still just... hurts... Because to me, in my perspective it sounds like he's saying all gays are just adolescents who act on their desires instead of marrying and acting for the good of society (The latest Bean book comes to mind) and producing children. But to me, society is like building a building with bricks. You need the materials for each brick and the mortar between them. Make a society filled with people who sacrifice too much for it's own good and you end up with heaps of disatisfied, depressed people. Create a society in which people only care about themselves and nothing gets done, either way it can collapse. The best system is one that uses middle ground. One that seeks out a certain balance. Many gays and lesbians, including Mel White have tried to live Orson Scott Card's ideal of getting married and having children. They have had theropy to get rid of their desires. They have even gone as far as getting themselves shocked, fasting, adopting appropiate same sex behaviour, whatever that means. It didn't work. None of it did. Instead of whole and content people you get broken souls who spend their whole lives feeling inferior. Can you really build a strong society with people who feel inferior? Even among many of these ex-gay groups, do they feel inferior to heterosexuals? Abnormal? In the case Brown vs. The board of education Marshall prove that segrating black children from whites has a negative effect on black children. Some may say, you cannot make that comparision. Sexuality is something that can be hidden, skin colour is not. But it's not that different... You can't build a strong society filled with people who hate themselves. IT doesn't work that way. These people will go on to have children and pass their insecurities and doubts down to them. The structure on an internal basis will be weak. Society would collapse. This is what the so-called postmodern film makers try to expose in their movies about suburban life presented in the most depressing light. It's not a clear reflection however, just the shadow side. Like this article is. To me it feels... vicious... acidic... It frightens and hurts me... maybe because it's just too... personal... I'm too involved.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, your last paragraph is unclear. Are you saying the article does that or the film makers? Because Card is always going off on the film makers. They are a large part of the culture his article was lashing out at.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modern filmmakers I see his perspective on that. It's hard to figure out which is worse, a whitewashed version of things or a postmodern depiction like say, Kids which says that everything's bad, this generation is hopeless, there's no hope. I can even see what he means in disliking American Beauty, though i liked that movie. Movie makers nowadays DO put a negative spin on things. I want more middle ground myself...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I thought Kids was an impressive movie. I don't even think it's much of an exaggeration. There are teenagers whose lives parallel those of the Kids characters. It tried to touch the audience in a very visceral, honest way.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, while we're derailed I guess I'll bring up the analogy of giving everyone a 1600 on their SATs so that no one's feelings will be hurt. But it invalidates the purpose of taking the SATs, and it is harmful to those who did get over, say, 1400. That is the basis of us cave people saying gay marriage harms our marriages.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Bok and stalk. They rhyme.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
