posted
I doubt that you and Card would select the same groups, and understanding the reasons behind eacb selection would help a great deal in understanding where the other is coming from.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not here to argue whether the behavior is right, just to argue that disapproving of someone's behavior is NOT the same thing as hating or fearing an entire group of people.
Likewise, merely disapproving of homosexuality is very different from saying that homosexuality should be an illegal sexual deviance.
Merely disapproving of homosexual behavior is also somewhat different from saying that homosexual behavior should not be accepted or tolerated in society, and that people who practice homosexuality should not be permitted equality in society!
The endorsement of such discrimination will, among other things, make one an excellent candidate for the label of 'homophobe.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said to pick any group. I was trying to pick another group whose behavior is objected to. Perhaps I should've used marijuana users - that's another group that engages in behavior some people feel is immoral and should be illegal, and some people think is harmless and affects no one but themselves.
So if OSC thinks the laws against marijuana use should stay on the books, he's a bigot against drug users?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if OSC thinks the laws against marijuana use should stay on the books, he's a bigot against drug users?
Nope. The comparison is unworkable, since the chief issue involving homosexuality is that it is not a personal choice even remotely in the form that a person electing to consume a recreational drug is. Being gay is greatly inborn and entirely immutable.
Fortunately, it's not much of an issue at all, as long as you live in a society that doesn't discriminate against you or criminalize you for your sexual preferences! You don't have to suffer or hide for virtue of the fact that you enjoy the company of the same sex.
Ain't this a good thing?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my point is being obscured by trying to compare it to other groups. I don't want to debate whether or not the feelings are a choice or whether or not the behavior is a choice or whether or not the behavior is moral.
My point is that to throw out a word like "homophobe" immediately ends the discussion. It means you want the other person to shut up because you don't want to hear their opinion. So you throw out a name that means they're a vile, unthinking bigot who hates a whole group of people and wants to persecute them and hang them all. Once that word is out there, then no one has to listen to the person's ideas at all anymore - they can just dismiss them with "Oh, he's just a homophobe." There are real homophobes out there, but using that word for someone like OSC diminishes the meaning of the word, because it's used to mean anyone who disagrees with the position of homosexuals, rather than the kind of scum who would drag a gay man to death behind their car because he's gay.
It happens a lot in Mormon circles too - someone will question an LDS doctrine, and the defensive Mormons in the group call him an anti-Mormon, and suddenly all discussion ceases. No reason to have a discussion at all, they're just an anti, and there's no use talking to them.
OSC has put forth his opinions clearly. I know many disagree with them. I disagree often myself. But he isn't filled with hate and trying to persecute people. He's just stating what kind of behavior he thinks ought to be illegal. That's an issue that can be debated - but the debate is over once the name-calling starts.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually, if he wants to use the law to drive us into hiding, then yeah, he wants to persecute us.
I've been incredibly sad all day since I read that quote. I can only hope that Scott has had a change of heart since he wrote that...
I would think that mormons would be especially sensitive to people using the law... and extra legal methods... to drive out people who don't quite fit societal norms.
quote:OSC has put forth his opinions clearly. I know many disagree with them. I disagree often myself. But he isn't filled with hate and trying to persecute people. He's just stating what kind of behavior he thinks ought to be illegal. That's an issue that can be debated - but the debate is over once the name-calling starts.
Words can be descriptive, even if -- by context -- they are inexorably pejorative.
Exa: 'criminal,' or 'anti-semite.' Sometimes, there's just no getting around what one's actions will get one labeled as. If a debate is canned, ended simply on account of these labels, then I'd venture to guess that the debate environment and/or participancy was critically flawed to begin with. It isn't over inherently, any more so than this Mel Gibson issue was over when people brought out the Anti-Semite bomb.
There's an applied definition of homophobia; a criteria of what defines a comment, action, legislation, or opinion as being homophobic. A statement that homosexual acts should be made and kept illegal, and that homosexuals are beneath heterosexuals? Dead ringer. Anyone short of an apologist will admit that yeah, ... that's pretty homophobic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Lisa it probably does not mean much, but again OSC has said he is in favor of laws that discourage PRACTICING homosexuals. In OSC view its stupid to nitpick about whether homosexuality is a choice as he feels that everyone is born with predispositions to do certain things that are wrong. A person who is homosexual then has no more claim for pity than a person who is born a pathological liar, or a person who is born with a titch of sadism.
I am not saying homosexuals are as bad as sadists, etc. Merely saying that from OSC perspective even if you could prove people are born homosexuals and it is not a choice in any way that that would matter little. For OSC the laws that punish those who ACT on those impulses should still remain in place.
Thinking that homosexuality is not right does not make you a homophobe, thinking that homosexuals are bad people or less deserving of the respect due all human beings does.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I was raised by a racist - a man who sincerely believed white people were inherently better than all others and used racial epithets around the house routinely.
I have, in bad moments, channeled my stepfather and things have come out of my mouth which deeply shamed me as soon as I realized I said them. On one case I distinctly remember, alcohol was certainly involved.
That's interesting. I thought alcohol just removed your inhibitions, in particular, that it wouldn't make you say anything you didn't believe.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seriously doubt OSC wants to drive homosexuals into hiding. As another Mormon it seems to me that his desire is to show homosexuals that there is a way that brings more joy if one is willing to try it.
You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
I know this might sound retarded to some, but there are moments in my life where I wonder that, "When the end of the world comes and all my friends are presented the truth in such a manner that they KNOW it is true, will they think that I was too cowardly to share it with them in the manner they deserved. Will they think I didn't care enough about them to share this wonderful message with them. Do I do what is required to be able to adequately communicate this truth to others, or am I too lazy in this regard. Will they condemn me for not braving their derision so that I could at least try my best to show them the truth?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's interesting I thought alcohol just removed your inhibitions, in particular, that it wouldn't make you say anything you didn't believe.
I think it's not a matter of what you do or don't believe, but alcohol loosening up your inhibition so that things you've heard all your childhood and young adulthood come out. Just because I repeated things my stepfather said doesn't mean I believed them. They were there, in my subconscious because they were beaten in to me by years of being raised in that environment. Doesn't mean I dont' still think those things were wrong.
You mean to tell me you've never blurted out something you've heard your parents say before, even though you swore to yourself you'd never say them? I know I have, even when I wasn't drinking, especially around my kids. I find myself saying things that when I was a kid I said "I'll never say that to my kids!" yet I do it anyway.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the delay, but by now it seems that most of my responses have been made.
I hadn't remembered that quote, and I'm saddened to see it, but it doesn't change my view. I do not believe that OSC hates and/or fears gay people. He hates and/or fears homosexual acts, the acceptance of those acts, and the changes he thinks will occur to society as a result of the acceptance of those acts. There is a distinction, small though it may be, and as JennaDean said that difference allows for discussion.
I have always had the impression that, given adequate reasoning and supportive findings, OSC might grudgingly accept some inroads of homosexual acceptance for a greater good. Civil unions, perhaps, or gay adoption. Whereas a homophobe, to be my way of thinking, isn't capable of addressing the issue. When pressed, a homophobe often can't give a real reason why he or she hates. It's a fear on a deeper level than conscious thought.
I don't want to seem like I'm OSC's apologist. But I think he holds that position based on reasoning and consideration and not on fear and ignorance. The fact that I flatly disagree with that position is besides the point.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who think homosexuality should be legal, what about polygamy? People always make the pedophile comparison...but I don't think that is a valid comparison because as starLisa pointed out, consent differs. A pedophile is breaking the law (and morals) because he is involved in non consensual sex (the same as a rapist). However with polygamy and homosexuality both can be consensual.
For me, both are things I wouldn't do...but if someone else wants to do it, I'm not sure why it should be illegal. I've never understood why someone would think that homosexuality was fine but polygamy was wrong.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lupus: I've never had somebody adequately argue that point either but I have had people who looked at me funny because I did not understand the difference, they acted like, "Everyone knows its not the same thing!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed? As I recall, we are "invited" to refrain from judging.
If you want to be an example, that's ducky. Making it illegal not to follow your example is coersion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed? As I recall, we are "invited" to refrain from judging.
If you want to be an example, that's ducky. Making it illegal not to follow your example is coersion.
If you are a Mormon you were invited to, "Refrain from judging unjustly."
The natural response to your statement would be something along the lines of:
"But you are coercing me to tolerate the existance of an act that I think is wrong and harmful."
you would say, "How do 2 homosexuals having sex effect you adversely directly?"
and I would respond with something like, "It cuts away at the family structure which is the groundwork of good society."
You would argue that it does not, I would say it does so, and I would ask why I am being asked to not vote according to my own beliefs. I'd rather just avoid the standard list of exchanges.
To be honest, I personally am not sure how I feel about anti homosexual legislation. I made a thread about this very question a few weeks ago. On the one hand I do think homosexuality ought to be discouraged in a moral and effective manner, and I think legislation making polygamy illegal is absolutely bogus.
But on the other hand how can I in a democracy support legislation that discourages a behavior that people very positively believe is right.
And then I think again, "Why shouldn't I vote for legislation the supports behavior I agree with and discourages behavior I think is wrong?" If a person cannot vote to make their environment more to their liking whats the point of voting?
I am still at a quagmire, so don't look to me for effective explanations concerning this dilemma.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed?
The term illegal is very imprecise here.
Polygamy is, in most states, illegal in the sense that a man living with a legal wife and three other women whom he refers to as "my wives" (but not in any legal sense) but has not attempted to legally wed can be thrown in prison.
As of Lawrence v. Texas, a homosexual couple can live together and refer to each other as "my spouse" (but not in any legal sense) without facing criminal sanction.
There is a vast difference between the law not recognizing a particular consensual adult relationship and criminalizing a particular consensual adult relationship, and homosexual couples do not face the latter consequence today.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I wasn't refering to current law, but to this suggestion that "homosexual behavior" shold be illegal:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", by Orson Scott Card: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lupus: I have no problem with polygamy so long as everyone in the relationship is married to everyone else. That is, the relationship is a triangle, not a V.
I even seen the advantage in it. Two spouses work, one stays at home and takes care of a whole mess of kids. Sounds like heaven to me. Too bad I don't love that way.
Still, as much as I think it should be legally recognized, it's different from the fight for gay rights in that it is MUCH more complicated when things fall apart and the courts must decide who gets what and what happens with the children.
If marriage was forever, like it's supposed to be, this wouldn't be an issue... But as the divorce statistics show, people havea hard time sticking together with one person... how much harder is it to stick together with 2 or more people.
posted
Pixiest, I had a point by point rebuttal of your post, but it seemed kinda pointless (excuse the pun) to just outline why your thinking is wrong in regards to polygamy.
All I will say is I think that the fact people talk so much about gay marriage and almost no attention is paid to polygamy is very much akin to fighting for the rights of one ethnic group to vote while ignoring the claims of another.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let me put it another way though: I think that, in most cases, you don't need to know anything about the artist in order to appreciate his or her art in the deepest and most meaningful way. Or, more broadly, I simply think that it is possible to take great meaning from art in a way that is totally unrelated to the creator and the creator's intentions. That is what I mean when I said the art is "separate" from the artist.
This makes considerably more sense as a position, however it still requires that you approach art from a position that politics is not an issue for you at all. That connection, for you, has to be ignored.
Also, how will his politics effect his films? Isn't he capable of doing things, portraying people in ways that he wants you to believe? If you believe that good art is also cathardic, then what about a false catharsis, where you are exposed to his twisted vision? We are none of us immune from suggestion, and we ussually freely admit being "affected" by a good film. I wonder too if we are affected by the wrong images in a film.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Unfortunately we gotta fight these things one at a time and we have to pick our fights.
It would be nice if, when we finally get equal rights, we won't turn our backs on the polyamorous/polygamists (whichever they prefer to be called) It would be nice if we would fight for their rights too.
But people have a tendancy not to care about equal rights for others once their group gets equality.
Personally, I think it was an abuse of power to require mormons to change their religion before the US would like Utah become a state.
Honestly, I'd be interested in your point by point disection of my comments. I'm assuming you've been in a polyamorous relationship or have been close to those that have?
Please email me if you don't want to discuss this publicly. p ix ie st (at) y a hoo (dot) co m
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Unfortunately we gotta fight these things one at a time and we have to pick our fights.
It would be nice if, when we finally get equal rights, we won't turn our backs on the polyamorous/polygamists (whichever they prefer to be called) It would be nice if we would fight for their rights too.
But people have a tendancy not to care about equal rights for others once their group gets equality.
Personally, I think it was an abuse of power to require mormons to change their religion before the US would like Utah become a state.
Honestly, I'd be interested in your point by point disection of my comments. I'm assuming you've been in a polyamorous relationship or have been close to those that have?
Please email me if you don't want to discuss this publicly. p ix ie st (at) y a hoo (dot) co m
Pix
I found out recently that several of my ancestors on my maternal grandparents side were polygamists but I set my feelings on the topic long before I learned of this. I must admit its "interesting" to find out that one is decended from a polygamist wife.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: So what is it you think of polygamy? Now that I've told you what I think.
I figure if we could see all the details on every person in our family tree we'd find a lot of things to admire and a lot of things that are less than admirable. And a lot of things that are debatable as to which category they fit into.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Its interesting that EVERY single major religion allows for the practice of at least polygyny
There are not many precepts that have achieved such general acceptance, though admitedly mainstream Christianity does not allow for Polygamy of any sort. Interestingly enough Martin Luther said, that he could not, "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."
According to Wikipedia the Libertarian party is in favor of decriminalizing polygamy as part of its belief that the govt ought not to regulate marriage at all.
Even within societies that allow for polygamy it is still seldomly practiced.
You could argue quite effectively that polygamy is as ancient if not more so than homosexuality. You could also argue that polygamists are going to jail for their beliefs whereas homosexuals are starting to ask for benefits (marriage) rather then the right to be homosexual.
Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
I guess I have to fall back on the logic that I should not be required to vote against my personal convictions.
Is it a possibility than there is no way that EVERY single idea can exist at the same time, even in a society? If that is so then it seems possible that I could support polygamy being decriminalized and homosexuality continuing to be denied marriage priveledges and adoption rights.
I really am not sure sometimes how I feel about all of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading that I'm not sure how you feel about it either.
quote: Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
This is particularly difficult to parse.
It seems to me that given your druthers you'd vote "Yes" to polygamy but "No" for homosexuals on the basis that polygamy is not forbidden by scripture.
Please let me know if I am misinterpreting you.
However, this isn't a theocrasy and when people vote their religion we end up with some pretty awful things... like blue laws and sexual minorities being opressed.
For those who think voting their religion is a good thing, I want you to concider that the US might not always be predominately christian. At some point, due to immigration and a falling native birth rate, we could be hindu, buddist or even Muslim. I'm sure you won't enjoy living under Sharia law any more than I would.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: After reading that I'm not sure how you feel about it either.
quote: Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
This is particularly difficult to parse.
It seems to me that given your druthers you'd vote "Yes" to polygamy but "No" for homosexuals on the basis that polygamy is not forbidden by scripture.
Please let me know if I am misinterpreting you.
However, this isn't a theocrasy and when people vote their religion we end up with some pretty awful things... like blue laws and sexual minorities being opressed.
For those who think voting their religion is a good thing, I want you to concider that the US might not always be predominately christian. At some point, due to immigration and a falling native birth rate, we could be hindu, buddist or even Muslim. I'm sure you won't enjoy living under Sharia law any more than I would.
I wouldnt say I think Polygamy is ALWAYS good and that homosexuality is bad because the scriptures say so.
I have my own reasons for believing that homosexuality is not good, and I am not so much a fool as to think that polygamy is catergorically always good. There are people that should not practice it, but I do think there are certain people that would benefit from the system existing.
It might sound strange but I do not think my particular brand of Christianity has espoused any sort of generally agreed upon evil. Utah was the 2nd state to allow women the right to vote, and it entered the union as a free state, it also did not support segregation to say a few things.
But most Utahn do support the movement to block gay marriages, yet there was plenty of debate on the topic. I personally voted against the gay marriage ban that past in 2004 because I thought giving civil unions to homosexuals was an acceptable compromise.
I am still against allowing homosexuals to adopt children, and I do not think schools should have literature either espousing or discouraging the sentiment of homosexuality.
I'm sorry that I cannot give you a perfect answer to your queries as I myself have not come to a complete conclusion.
I would like to say Pixiest that I feel absolutely no emnity towards homosexuals. As a younger person I was a homophobic person (a state that I do not blame on my religion but on myself) my religion has never advocated shuning those who do not believe as I do, I simply made the classical mistake of not weighing somebodies motives and reasons and instead simply saw the act. Its not easy for me to admit having been so foolish even though it would be easy for me to simply dismiss it as adolecent foolishness.
I guess I find it difficult to accept that people say to me, "Do not impose your beliefs on others, they have a right to live in this society too." and the fact that by asking me to do that you are in fact saying, "Step aside while we establish our beliefs within the society you live in, it is wrong of you to voice your disent and even more so to vote accordingly."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I find it difficult to accept that people say to me, "Do not impose your beliefs on others, they have a right to live in this society too." and the fact that by asking me to do that you are in fact saying, "Step aside while we establish our beliefs within the society you live in, it is wrong of you to voice your disent and even more so to vote accordingly."
Its this line of reasoning that got my ancestors (and yours I presume) burned out of everywhere they went because people wouldn't "step aside" and let the mormons to live in peace.
Unfortunately, there's no empty western territory for all us queers to move to and establish our own home.
As for gay and lesbian adoption.. even if you believe a child being raised by two women is less than optimal, how can you say it's better than being raised in an orphanage?
Especially if headway is made on the abortion front (I'm pro-choice but I wish people would choose adoption) there will be a greater and greater need for couples, gay or straight, or even singles! to adopt children who are not aborted.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You realize of course, that we are unwelcome in most of the US. Which is why I had to leave my home straight out of school before I came out of the closet and could actually start living my life.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ill be back tomorrow pretty much all day Pixiest and we can continue this later, I am enjoying the conversation thus far, I hope you are too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, you seem caught up in this "vote my conscience" thing. Let me give my opinion on that. Of course you should be able to vote your conscience. However, I don't think that anybody should have the right to vote at all concerning an issue that involves how other people live their lives, given that the behavior is not destructive to anybody else. I'm not saying that there should be laws allowing homosexuality and polygamy, I'm saying that there should be no laws regarding these things at all, period. We don't, and under no circumstances should we, have the right to vote to control the books somebody reads, nor should we have the right to control who somebody spends their time with.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Utah was the 2nd state to allow women the right to vote, and it entered the union as a free state, it also did not support segregation to say a few things.
Just for the record . . . when Utah first petitioned to become a state, we did so as a slave state. Even though there you could almost count the number of slaves in the whole territory on your fingers, there were Mormon slave owners, and the church was adverse to making them criminals. Linky. By the time we were actually admited into the union in 1896, the whole free/slave dicotomy was no longer an issue.
Now, women's sufferage, that's a fun story. Anti-polygamy groups from back east were agitating to give women the vote in Utah, under the assumption that if women had any say in the matter, they would surely make the practice illegal. The territorial legislature was game, and unanimously passed an act in 1869 giving women the vote. But surprise, surprise, the women did not vote against polygamy. The infamous Edmunds-Tucker act not only outlawed polygamy in 1887, but stripped Utah women of the vote. Not to worry, though, we got it back when we finally became a state; women's sufferage is written into the state constitution. Linky.Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Consider 1. OSC's intent in what he said: his stated goal of discouraging homosexual behavior.
Consider 2. The intent Chris had in denying that "Osc wants to put gays in jail." Chris was rightly correcting an exaggeration and misrepresentation of intent. OSC did not say: "put gays in jail," not directly. He said the laws which allow gays to be jailed should remain on the books, and he said it was to discourage the behavior.
Please Lisa, believe me when I say I agree that even that is bigoted and narrow minded, but it is not in the affirmative sense: "Put these gays in jail." You do no justice to any argument by misrepresenting the opposition. You have nothing to hide from this argument, and OSC's view should be enough as he stated it, without you projecting intent into it, to argue against. I know you partly want to just snow the issue and make the opposition look worse than it is, but you won't ever (have you ever?) win an argument if you refuse to actually argue honestly.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know this might sound retarded to some, but there are moments in my life where I wonder that, "When the end of the world comes and all my friends are presented the truth in such a manner that they KNOW it is true, will they think that I was too cowardly to share it with them in the manner they deserved. Will they think I didn't care enough about them to share this wonderful message with them. Do I do what is required to be able to adequately communicate this truth to others, or am I too lazy in this regard. Will they condemn me for not braving their derision so that I could at least try my best to show them the truth?"
God this is egotistical. Please, spare us.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, how will his politics effect his films? Isn't he capable of doing things, portraying people in ways that he wants you to believe? If you believe that good art is also cathardic, then what about a false catharsis, where you are exposed to his twisted vision? We are none of us immune from suggestion, and we ussually freely admit being "affected" by a good film. I wonder too if we are affected by the wrong images in a film.
It will effect it in one of two ways: It might make the films bad (false, boring, etc.), in which case they will be bad whether or not we know what Gibson's politics are. Or they might not make the films bad, in which case they will remain good whether or not we know what Gibson's politics are. Thus, we can still judge the film on its own merits, regardless of any knowledge of Gibson's politics, because his politics are only an issue to the film-watcher insofar as they harm or improve the merits of the film.
As for being "affected" by a film, that is true. But the degree to which a film would convince us to be anti-semitic is not determined by Mel Gibson's level of antisemitism. It is determined by the degree of anti-semitism expressed in the film. If Hitler made a film that had no anti-semitic images in it, then the film would not be anti-semitic, no matter how its creator feels about Jews. And if the state of Israel produced a film that for some reason contained a bunch of anti-semitic themes, it could be anti-semitic no matter how its creator feels.
quote:God this is egotistical. Please, spare us.
If you had a choice between being egotistical in order to save your friends and letting your friends die, what would you do?
Let's say a person comes to me, and starts talking about his anti-homosexuality religious position. He thinks that homosexuality is wrong and absolutely should not be practiced in this country. In fact, he thinks that there should be laws on the books to criminalize homosexual sex.
I'll listen to the position, and say "Gee, homophobic much?"
Then say that this person says "Nono -- I'm not homophobic. See, I'm not in favor of making homosexuality itself illegal, or in favor of punishing homosexuals. I just want to make it so that people who practice homosexual acts be treated as societal lessers and prosecuted under anti-homosexual act laws."
"Oh," I say. "So if all these otherwise free homosexual men and women hang around and just never elect to have consensual homosexual sex with each other as they would otherwise want, then you only think of them as misguided, and not criminals."
"Yes. In addition, I'm only really doing this because I care for the homosexuals. Also, I'm simply attempting to legislate this way based on my personal belief that even allowing homosexuals to have sex with each other in the privacy of their own home is damaging to a healthy, good society and thus must be legislated against. This isn't homophobic. It's just doing what's right for the homosexuals."
"Gee, homophobic much?"
Sorry, no weaseling out on bogus distinctions. Wanting gay sex to be criminal is a distinctly homophobic position
Did you notice how every hypothetical 'no, I'm not a homophobe because X' situation presented above was based accurately on senator Rick Santorum's arguments that he, too, is not a homophobe?
addendum
quote:I don't want to seem like I'm OSC's apologist. But I think he holds that position based on reasoning and consideration and not on fear and ignorance.
It doesn't have to be fear/hatred/ignorance for homophobia. To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
This makes it like the catchall term 'racism' for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against different races.
Both are -- as mentioned before -- unavoidably pejorative, but they are both descriptive. A person who wants to criminalize interracial marriages is a racist. And they can't weasel out of being a racist just because they claim that their position is 'based on reasoning and consideration, not fear and hatred.'
posted
Orincoro: Your derision is duely noted. Also only you have stated as much, try not speaking for others, "us" unless you are sure others feel the same way.
thx Tresopax, though I confess I think being egotistical would probably serve as a retardent to one being able to communicate with others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People used to burn gays and witches to "clense their soul" so they would go to heaven anyway.
I'm not big on the whole "We're persecuting you for your own good" angle...
Orincoro: It's not egotistical. It's caring about your friends. If you're worried your friend is going to go to hell, you warn them. And after the 5th time they tell YOU to go to hell, you need to give up or risk losing the friendship.
Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difficulty I have Pixiest is that say I allow homosexuals to practice freely, get married, and integrate their way of life more and more into mainstream society, I and my family down the road have to exist in that society. Sure I can raise my kids with my own values but that does not mean they will not be directly effected by the society they live in.
Certainly homosexual marriage is not the nail in the coffin for my kids, but its just one more thing that I think makes society worse, other peoples behavior does in fact effect me as much as people say it doesnt. Its not like people are homosexual inside their home and once they leave they arnt.
I'm trying to be as politely honest as I know how.
again I am not sure what the solution to all this is, and I suppose anything I write is not very useful as I very likely may change my mind in some regard down the road, possibly while debating in this very thread.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to exist in society there are going to be people you disagree with and people who offend you. Just as mormons were offensive to the rest of society in their time.
If anything, you can use homosexuality as an example of things you think are wrong but must be tolerated if we are all going to co-exist.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll listen to the position, and say "Gee, homophobic much?"
Then say that this person says "Nono -- I'm not homophobic. See, I'm not in favor of making homosexuality itself illegal, or in favor of punishing homosexuals. I just want to make it so that people who practice homosexual acts be treated as societal lessers and prosecuted under anti-homosexual act laws."
"Oh," I say. "So if all these otherwise free homosexual men and women hang around and just never elect to have consensual homosexual sex with each other as they would otherwise want, then you only think of them as misguided, and not criminals."
"Yes. In addition, I'm only really doing this because I care for the homosexuals. Also, I'm simply attempting to legislate this way based on my personal belief that even allowing homosexuals to have sex with each other in the privacy of their own home is damaging to a healthy, good society and thus must be legislated against. This isn't homophobic. It's just doing what's right for the homosexuals."
"Gee, homophobic much?"
Is this story supposed to suggest your position is correct? You don't offer any argument for your position at all. If you have no response to the other position other than to blindly repeat "Gee, homophobic much?" then all it illustrates is that you have decided to call people homophobic whether it is actually true or not.
quote:It doesn't have to be fear/hatred/ignorance for homophobia. To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
That isn't true. Claiming that homosexual relationships are problematic does not make you homophobic, unless it is based in some fear or hatred you have of homosexuals. That's the reason why being homophobic is inherently bad - precisely because being homophobic entails an unnecessary hatred or fear of other people that is not based in reason.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like the reasoning behind freedom of speech and expression, in a way. It allows people to openly express things that I may personally detest (KKK rallies, etc etc) but it is entirely more important that I live in a society that lets them do that.
The alternative is hideous.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
