posted
On another thread, Geoff suggested that his dad wasn't as angry or disdainful of homosexuals seeking marriage as he was of social liberals in general, and that his tone was justified due to what he considered the importance of fighting the imminent threat.
So I want to make something clear: I am a social liberal, and I support a number of causes that OSC would oppose. That said, I do NOT seek to make it impossible for him to live his life the way he wants, according the morality of his choice.
The issue here, to me, is one of "negative" rights. I do not mean to suggest, when I endorse homosexual marriage, that OSC's marriage should be meaningless, or that his bond with his wife should in some way be reduced to a civil, godless "sham." I do not seek to tear down his world around his ears.
But neither do I believe that he or anyone else has the right to dictate the behavior of others in situations where that behavior cannot be shown to cause immediate, demonstrable harm to those individuals or the people around them.
I recognize that OSC, as a social conservative, has previously said that he believes individuals SHOULD have this right; I also recognize that others (like Geoff, I suspect) would argue that homosexuality does in fact cause demonstrable harm.
So THIS, then, is where the conflict lies. It's not about gay marriage, ultimately: it's about whether or not people have the right to tell other people what to do, even if those people don't always agree on the consequences of their actions.
OSC's position, based on his recent essay, seems to suggest that he believes the law of the majority should be the deciding factor in such cases; if the majority of people believe that something is bad, they should be able to circumscribe that behavior however they see fit. I'm personally too cynical of the majority to endorse this view; too many times throughout history has the majority caused a minority to suffer needlessly because they were afraid of phantom harm.
This may not be an issue on which we can ever agree. It might ALWAYS be a stumbling block, since OSC and I clearly have different priorities when it comes to freedoms and taboos. But I'd just like to make clear, in case there's anyone here who read that last essay and got the wrong idea, that I -- as one of the people who've apparently gotten OSC riled up -- am not seeking to destroy his way of life, and neither do I believe that my goals and motivations are incompatible with his own.
I -- and my friends -- are not intending to be barbarians at his gates. I mean him no harm. I mean his MARRIAGE no harm. And, believe it or not, I mean society no harm. In fact, I strongly believe that homosexual marriage will have innumerable beneficial effects on society, ones that will ultimately lead to an increase in the kind of behavior that I suspect OSC would consider moral.
Basically, I'd just like it if he didn't act like he were afraid of me.
posted
The problem is at one point the majority of people in American agreed with slavery. Then later they agreed with segregation. Just because a majority of people agree with it, doesn't make it right. Legislation had to be used and law enforcement and so many other things to emphasize this point.
I don't want to destroy society either. If anything I want to build a strong society in which each person has worth and can contribute as much as possible. It's the barbarians IN the gate that people should worry more about. Their own fences.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what way is this a white flag? He's not afraid of transvestite beauty pageants (although when they are funded by the CDC it's a little annoying. He's afraid of statements like this:
quote: I strongly believe that homosexual marriage will have innumerable beneficial effects on society, ones that will ultimately lead to an increase in the kind of behavior that I suspect OSC would consider moral.
I don't know all of why he did it in such an offensive way, but I think it was a wake up call to say "chocolate covered ants are still ants".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find that chocolate covered ants (for instance, as "nuts" in brownies) are pretty good.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, thats actually appears to be an adaptation of a quote from the Doctrine and Covenants (if you don't know how naive Mormons are, they are regularly quoting a book called the D&C in church )
The idea is that people should only be influenced through love and service. Not force or manipulation. But this applies to people you "rule over" in the church order. The scriptures are full of prophets "yelling at" other priesthood holders and unbelievers.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This talk of majority confuses me. We don't live in a democracy, maybe more of a democratic republic. And the majority does NOT rule. Not really. Not when you can be president even when your opponent got the most individual votes (not that I mind Bush being president, or anything. It's just annoying that people keep saying 'majority this' and 'majority that' when the simple majority often means NOTHING).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, why would he be afraid of my statement of opinion? What about it threatens his way of life?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
No, I don't understand enemy making. It seems that the larger the group, the more it seeks to make non-group members enemies. Which is why I refuse to belong to any large groups. I'll be a political independent, a religious free spirit, and a thinker of my own thoughts.
Why can't people come together in common bond without hating those who don't share the same priorities? Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why can't people come together in common bond without hating those who don't share the same priorities?"
I think it's because it's inevitable that people will eventually work for the goals in which they believe, based on their assumptions -- and will grow to either tire of people who don't come around to sharing their assumptions (and thus become snide and disdainful of them), or else view those people as opponents dedicated to destroying the things they care about.
L'enfer, c'est les autres.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why can't people come together in common bond without hating those who don't share the same priorities?
What common bond?
quote:and will grow to either tire of people who don't come around to sharing their assumptions (and thus become snide and disdainful of them), or else view those people as opponents dedicated to destroying the things they care about.
This does not bode well for the future of Slash's campaign. If Tom's premise is true, Mission will eventually have it out with Farron, Sa'id, and maybe Rennick. And Cadfael.
Enjoy the peace while it lasts, 'cuz the things they is about to get rocky.
[ February 25, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The fact that we are all human beings and should be allowed to do what pleases us as long as it doesn't hurt someone else ?
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Card's essay, amid all the hurtful things that I wouldn't have necessarily said, did say something I thought was important- that the way to address the breakdown of the family is not to break the family down further. But the sentence I quoted from you is what he described as prescribing more of the disease to cure a sick patient.
I guess we agree that families are important, we just differ what is a family. Which to me, is like not agreeing on the definition of the word "is". So to me, the white flag in this thread title seems to be you calling for a white flag from OSC's defenders. I don't want to start the whole debate anew, I'm just pointing out that you didn't yet define shared ground.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So to me, the white flag in this thread title seems to be you calling for a white flag from OSC's defenders."
Ah. You mistake the point of my post, then.
It was not addressed to OSC's "defenders." It was specifically addressed to Card himself, as I just wanted to remind him that not every social liberal wants to ruin his life -- or American society -- and in fact most of us believe that our policies are the best possible thing for the country. He's welcome to disagree, but I just wanted to reassure him that our motives are not -- despite the intimations in his article -- hostile or insidious.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, while we are waiting for OSC to show up and join the conversation, I will say that I agree your motives are not hostile and insidious. But are you familiar with M. Scott Peck's definition of evil? It is simply someone who doesn't think they can do any wrong. And if one doesn't embrace a system of right and wrong, it is pretty hard to entertain the idea that one might be wrong.
Edit: I'll insert an example here since Tom hasn't responded yet. This is from the Ebert review of "The Passion..." and demonstrates what Peck's definition:
quote: "Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."
To be without inner conflict, in this example, is to appear evil.
OSC wasn't saying "progress" should be curtailed, though it broke on Hatrack the same day Bush called for an amendment defining marriage. In that context it seems so, but when he wrote it he was merely offering what a likely result of such "progress" would be. Even as I write this, we have no idea if OSC even supports the idea of such an amendment.
Can you see that his remarks were framed by conditions a week ago and not conditions today?
posted
By your own admission then, this is rather empty and circular logic, Tom-- after all, saying, 'I'm not out to ruin your life, but I will work to change everything that you think gives your life meaning,' pretty much means that you're out to ruin someone's life.
By their POV, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"pretty much means that you're out to ruin someone's life."
Ah. But, see, that's exactly the philosophy that I think is in error, here, and why I think so many people opposed to gay marriage have their metaphorical knickers in a knot.
I submit that there is nothing in the world that can make Card's marriage into a sham -- or strip his life of all meaning -- except his own behavior.
(As a side note, pooka, I've never said that I don't believe in a system of right and wrong; I disagree, however, with the definition of "wrong" that is being used here. No more than that.)
posted
Oops, Tom did reply while I was editing. Oh well. So I'm just saying one can be evil without having any intent to harm anyone. It creates a paradox of course.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can say 'Stop' to a lot of things that other people think are a-ok.
But that's the point. You know what hurt is for you. No one else does. When you tell someone else 'stop', then you are saying 'this is hurt for me'. Hurt has then been defined at that moment.
Conversely, someone can't tell you 'you hurt' because then you can turn right back around and say 'not really'.
The emphasis is, and should be, more on the individual perception of hurt than the social perception of 'hurt' because as you correctly pointed out, what is true for you is not true for a lot of people.
Now, saying something like 'do as you will as long as it causes no harm' is a vague generality with a lot of exceptions. However, like 'do unto others' and 'honor thy father and mother', I think it can be a pretty useful guideline.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's actually no paradox involved; there are, however, misunderstandings. It's a matter of ends and means, as with many things.
Is it "evil" to go back in time and kill Hitler? Is it "evil" to own slaves, if you treat them well and everyone around you owns them, too? Is it "evil" to kill someone to free a dozen slaves? Is it "evil" to work for a law requiring women to hide their bodies from men, if you genuinely believe that the exposure of women's bodies will doom society as you know it?
I submit that means are always, ALWAYS more important than ends. ALWAYS. Not only because ends don't always happen (and are often entirely misprojected), but because people don't always agree on what the ends should be. But people ALWAYS know what the means feel like, as they're happening, and this is where our judgement should be applied.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.
I find this statement utterly bizarre. In Homecoming Zdorab was gay, but chose to marry and have children and should be applauded for overcoming his homosexuality. However, from the above quote, it seems to me that he is saying men are dogs and without society forcing them to be good, they'd screw anything that moved.
In a weird way, I feel like I finally understand what he's been saying. But to slam your own gender like that, it's odd. I mean, it seems to me that he is saying gay men need societal pressure to make sure they don't act upon their homosexual urges and straight men, seemingly, need the removal of no-fault divorce so they can control themselves sexually. No-fault divorces seem to have caused men, in droves, to abandon their families to fulfill their own sexual urges. Not that I agree with him, or anything. That's just what I get when I read his column.
Basically, it seems to me that OSC thinks men are pigs. I just find that amusing, though kind of in a "Dr. Laura hates women" kind of way.
Am I completely reading him wrong? I mean, before no-fault divorces, a woman could still get a divorce if her husband was cheating on her, though statistically, women don't divorce a men for an affair. I guess the women could have instigated the divorces in droves, when realizing that men are pigs. The optimists that they are though, they keep marrying them. Well, more likely, they've always know men are pigs, but never realized just how bad they were until after they were married/trapped. No-fault divorces, if anything, should be weeding the bad traits, like adultery and general piggishness out of the gene pool. It might take a while to see the results, but eventually, it might work. Hey, that's my point! Man's bizarre attempt at society has stunted the mens evolution!
[edit: Of course, I'm only halfway through the article so my opinion could change.]
[ February 25, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I was afraid that you would be offended by the broaching of the word "evil".
I wouldn't say means always are more important than ends, but that they two should be in a dynamic balance. I know you don't believe in God the way I do, but I believe he judges us by our intentions and our actions together. I guess my philosophy is that intent and action, means and ends should be united.
I guess even without God, though, there is some sense of right and wrong. Or fairness and unfairness, if you prefer. It's just not universal.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
...it's about whether or not people have the right to tell other people what to do, even if those people don't always agree on the consequences of their actions.
Um, yeah you do. If we both see a bomb-like device and you say, "I think it's a fake bomb, so I'm going to go ahead and light it here in your front yard;" I have the perfect right to say "Over my dead body."
too many times throughout history has the majority caused a minority to suffer needlessly because they were afraid of phantom harm.
Examples, please.
I -- as one of the people who've apparently gotten OSC riled up -- am not seeking to destroy his way of life
I completely believe this. I feel like you want to do the best. I also feel that you are naively wrong, and your choice of action will do irreparable harm. But not on purpose, and certainly not out of any malice.
Basically, I'd just like it if he didn't act like he were afraid of me.
I think he is afraid of well-meaning ignorance. Please, just study our recent (50-year) history, and let's all stop the social engineering for awhile.
Synesthesia:
I think you made a couple of factual errors:
The problem is at one point the majority of people in American agreed with slavery.
I don't think this is so. Perhaps the majority was willing to tolerate it for a time so that a fledgling country could gel and become a country which could survive a civil war. But never did the MAJORITY AGREE with slavery. They were just biding their time until our country could do away with it without destroying itself.
Then later they agreed with segregation.
Again, I doubt if the majority ever agreed with it.
Just because a majority of people agree with it, doesn't make it right.
Well, that much is right. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm off to take a nap for a bit, but I leave you with a quote from OSC (speaking about how "females" behave if they don't suppress their "natural impulses"): "females will begin to compete for males who already have female mates."
Either he doesn't believe this (which I sincerely hope), and is lying about what he thinks, or he does believe this, and I just have to shake my head.
I'd like to take a brief, informal survey of women here, and find out how many would, if they weren't restraining themselves, want to have sex with someone successful. Lets pick one who's rich -- Donald Trump.
quote:But never did the MAJORITY AGREE with slavery.
I think you'd have a hard time defending that statement with verifiable facts. It would probably prove equally likely to support the opposite statement, but there you go.
Edit: By the way, if I'm wrong and you do have support for that claim, I apologize and would raelly love to hear it.
posted
Not Donald Trump. But an attractive, successful man? Maybe. It's a competitive thing - can I get the guy every girl wants to fall for me? I have to admit, I've actually done this before (the bus driver in England, previously mentioned on this board). And found out that it is definitely not worth it, because you lose esteem from the women who were formerly your supporters. Unless the guy were exceptional...
Success is attractive, but it also needs to be accompanied by intellingence, compassion, caring, and talent in the sack. That is, if I'm to go for some guy who already has women. And, too, he's going to have to forego those other women when I'm in the picture. Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, forgive me, but my knowledge of historical political parties is pretty shaky. Were Tories noted for being either abolitionist or pro-slavery?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[tangent] Do the conservatives on this board really, genuinely think that the family was valued more and was better off in the 1950s than it is today? If so, why was it valued more?
I pick the 1950s because they seem to mark that as the point for the "social engineering" thing. It seems as if they are avoiding all of the positive Civil Right things that happened in the 1960s. To go back to the 50s would abrogate all of that.
And what would happen if we went back just a few more decades to either the 1920s or the 1940s when society was changing just as rapidly possibly more than it is today?
quote:The politically correct elite think they have the power to make these changes, because they control the courts.
Have you read The Project for the New American Century's website? It's created exactly by people like you. See, Bush's huge deficits aren't there to actually help people. They are there to bankrupt the social programs he disagrees with. Once they are gone, we can spend money on important things, like overthrowing governments and forcing everyone to live like the Stepfords.
quote:These people hate putting questions like this to a vote. Like any good totalitarians, they know what's best for the people, and they'll force it down our throats any way they can.
Like the Patriot Act I & II?
quote: That's what the Democratic filibuster in the Senate to block Bush's judicial appointments is all about
That's what Bush recess appointing of judges is all about.
quote: 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.
I don't see how this is different than the way liberals feel now, though it's too bad they won't move.
quote:It is the most morally conservative portion of society that is most successful in raising children who believe in loyalty and oath-keeping and self-control and self-sacrifice.
::raises hand and points to self::
I'm living proof that ain't true.
quote: Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies?
Do you mean to say the entire Armed Forces of the US are made up of Republicans?
quote: Let's take a poll of our volunteer military -- especially those who specialize in combat areas -- and see what civilization it is that they actually volunteered to defend.
From recent reports, they signed up to defend a country where their President doesn't lie to the country and risk their lives over ever changing reasons. It's why so many of them are angry.
This is the most vitriolic I think I've ever seen OSC. It's a bit disconcerting. I'm usually this way, but he's usually calm and reasoned, even on subjects that I disagree with him on, I've often thought he made interesting points in a non-abusive fashion. This just seems over the top to me.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The politically correct elite think they have the power to make these changes, because they control the courts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read The Project for the New American Century's website? It's created exactly by people like you. See, Bush's huge deficits aren't there to actually help people. They are there to bankrupt the social programs he disagrees with. Once they are gone, we can spend money on important things, like overthrowing governments and forcing everyone to live like the Stepfords.
Would you care to point to any evidence on either the plan “to bankrupt the social programs” or “force everyone to live like the Stepfords.”
quote: These people hate putting questions like this to a vote. Like any good totalitarians, they know what's best for the people, and they'll force it down our throats any way they can. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Patriot Act I & II?
You do know those were passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support, right? And were based on a similar law passed in the Clinton administration, right? (See http://archive.aclu.org/congress/terract.html for ACLU’s analysis of that bill.)
quote:I'm usually this way...
Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery.
Sometimes I think that certain value systems are just incompatible with free civil society. A lot of people, OSC included, believe this about fundamentalist Islam. In my more cynical moments I think it's true of all serious religion.
If your top priority is obeying the commandments of the rightful monarch of the universe, how can you ever have the confidence in your own moral compass and the dedication to human rights that it takes to be a contributing member of a democracy?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's OK. At some point, people thought that those who didn't try to live in accord with the Creator's wishes weren't capable of participating in society. Humanity survived that; we'll survive your cynical moments, too.
Especially since you show a complete lack of understanding of moral reasoning within a religious framework.
posted
Dag, is there any particular reason that you so often structure your sentences so as to appear hostile? If it is because you are hostile, why are you so often hostile?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:At some point, people thought that those who didn't try to live in accord with the Creator's wishes weren't capable of participating in society.
A lot of people do still believe that. Last I checked only 49% said they would consider voting for an atheist candidate for president.
quote:Especially since you show a complete lack of understanding of moral reasoning within a religious framework.
I'm sure I don't know what specific moral reasoning you'd call upon yourself, but the position that things are right or wrong just because of God's commands is a pretty common one. That seems to equate to the idea that the universe is naturally an absolute monarchy. How could someone who believes in the rightness of monarchy be fully committed to democratic values?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of people do still believe that. Last I checked only 49% said they would consider voting for an atheist candidate for president.
Sounds like democracy to me: People evaluating representatives on the characteristics they think matter most. Participating in society means being allowed to run, no being guaranteed a win.
quote:I'm sure I don't know what specific moral reasoning you'd call upon yourself, but the position that things are right or wrong just because of God's commands is a pretty common one. That seems to equate to the idea that the universe is naturally an absolute monarchy. How could someone who believes in the rightness of monarchy be fully committed to democratic values?
Well, since the Founders used the idea that England was offending the laws of God in not providing representation to the Colonials, I think there’s plenty of analysis already existing to answer that question for you.
quote: Dag, is there any particular reason that you so often structure your sentences so as to appear hostile? If it is because you are hostile, why are you so often hostile?
I structure my sentences in accordance with the post I’m responding to. In this case, the post was in response to someone oversimplifying complex political science and theological issues in a single sentence to question my fitness for participating in a democratic society.
I’d have to know what other posts you consider hostile to provide answers on those.
quote:I structure my sentences in accordance with the post I’m responding to. In this case, the post was in response to someone oversimplifying complex political science and theological issues in a single sentence to question my fitness for participating in a democratic society.
I’d have to know what other posts you consider hostile to provide answers on those.
Fair enough.
Limiting the question to what's been said in this thread, though, is "Especially since you show a complete lack of understanding of moral reasoning within a religious framework" the only or best way to convey your meaning? It seems like "Especially since you are oversimplifying complex political science and theological issues in a single sentence to question my fitness for participating in a democratic society" would say pretty much the same thing but is more polite, conveys less hostility and disdain, and is more likely to cause the person to whom you're speaking to pay attention to what you said and not how you said it.
I suppose it depends on your goal. If your goal is to show disdain, cause defensiveness, or get revenge for a perceived slight, then your approach seems appropriate. But if your goal is to try to change the person's mind, get the person to be more accurate and precise in his/her future communication, or to get him/her to apologize for offending you, I don't think your approach is optimal. Of course, your goal could be none of these things, in which case I don't know if your method is optimal or not.
quote:I am curious as to why you though my post was any more hostile than Destineer's...
It has to do with my perception of Destineer's tone and intended audience. Since his post seemed to contain an air of resignation or sadness or disappointment, rather than heat, that made it seem less hostile. And since it was not directed at a specific person (to the best of my ability to interpret), what hostility may have been there was ineffectual since it had no target. I will agree that his stated opinions are opposed to those of many of the people who have read and will read his post, but opposition and hostility are not equivalent.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
) ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You know what hurt is for you. No one else does. When you tell someone else 'stop', then you are saying 'this is hurt for me'. Hurt has then been defined at that moment. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
