quote:A behaviour? I'd think a lot of gay people, even semi-gay people would disagree with that.
Engaging in sexual activity of any kind is a behavior. I think if you look closely at what Card and others who oppose homosexuality say, they don't condemn people for being attracted to people of the same sex, they condemn only the sexual activity itself. That is behavior and I doubt many people, even gay people, would claim that ones sexual practices are not behavior. I think this is very important to recognize. Most of the gay people I know don't think that homosexuality is strictly a behavior, but for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn.
quote:Even if it "Can be controlled" why should it?
That's a perfectly valid question and one worthy of discussion. But still, that is a different discussion than the discussion over whether there is any difference between being opposition to homosexual activity and anti-semitism.
quote:I don't see it as any different than heterosexuality. I don't view it as abnormal or something to be looked down on.
You don't see it that, many people do. If your goal is to pursuade those people they are wrong and not just congratulate yourself for being superior, then it is worth trying to understand where they are coming from.
Card thinks homosexuality is both self destructive and harmful to society. If you don't but you'd like to understand him rather than call him names, substitute any behavior you think is destructive and harmful and see if his arguments make sense. If the arguments would make sense for something that you think is destructive and harmful, then Card isn't being hateful or engaging in some sort of paranoia, he just disagrees with you about what is destructive and harmful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: And regarding his argument that laws making it criminally punishable to engage in homosexual behavior should remain on the books in order to keep gays socially repressed, he has explained that he wrote that almost twenty years ago, as part of an argument that states should stop enforcing such laws indiscriminately, as many were at the time doing.
Really? There was a WWW 20 years ago? Who knew?
If he didn't want to express that view, he could take the article down, or rewrite it.
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: He argues that public celebrations of homosexuality set a bad example particularly for children who may be confused about their sexual orientation, and so should be discouraged by law - not that private sexual behavior should be punishable.
Actually, that's not what he wrote. And public celebrations of heterosexuality set a bad example for kids who are confused about their sexual orientation as well. That's why so many of us come out later in life.
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: And only a few days ago I read a lament by a long term gay activist in California, legally married to his partner of many years, that the extremes of behavior flaunted by the latest Gay Pride celebration he attended made him uncomfortable. If a married gay man can feel that way, is OSC's attitude all that far from the mainstream?
I won't take my daughter to a pride parade. I haven't been to one myself since Tova was an infant. But pride parades are one thing. Criminalizing homosexuality is quite another.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, there is a breakdown of who opposes the legality of homosexual relations from 2003. There should be changes, but the percentage of people who oppose legality in 2003 at 37% is within the error of 40% for today.
Here are some demographics:
quote:"Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?" May 5-7, 2003
I guess the question is how much you associate with religious Christians, older people, rural people, etc. (sorry for the formatting)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn
How sure are you about this? A lot of people believe that for a man to look lustfully on a woman is tantamount to adultery; wouldn't they feel the same way about lustful homosexual thoughts? I can't point to any specific examples, but I'm sure I've heard rhetoric that labels homosexual attraction a 'disgusting perversion' or blames it on the influence of Satan. I'm quite sure that a lot of gay people have felt condemned by society before they ever acted on their feelings.
BTW, the comparison to drug use only works if there's an approved, healthy form of drug use that Card approves of and enjoys himself. If OSC was a happy cocaine user but maintained that heroin was evil and must remain illegal, we'd have a more valid analogy.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That's a perfectly valid question and one worthy of discussion. But still, that is a different discussion than the discussion over whether there is any difference between being opposition to homosexual activity and anti-semitism.
Why? A Jew can never stop being Jewish in the eyes of God, but there've been any number of Jews over the millenia who've stopped identifying as Jews and simply assimilated. Who were, to draw a parallel to homosexuality, closeted or completely in denial. Who lived as non-Jews and were accepted as non-Jews.
In both cases, it's basically an issue of extortion. People say, "Hey, we'll treat you like human beings (even if you aren't really) so long as you hide who you are. So long as you're properly ashamed of who you are. Dare to raise your head and be okay with yourself, and we'll do all we can to make your life a living hell."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
People say, "I just am against the activity, not the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex. Its only when they act on that behavior that I object."
Then I ask, if two good Christian men fell in love, but did not consummate that love, would you be all right with them holding hands? Kissing? Living together?
I get a surprising number of, "Oh no. That would look bad." In other words, its not the bad behavior they want banned, its the appearance of bad behavior.
Its basically don't ask/don't tell for civilian life.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW, the comparison to drug use only works if there's an approved, healthy form of drug use that Card approves of and enjoys himself. If OSC was a happy cocaine user but maintained that heroin was evil and must remain illegal, we'd have a more valid analogy.
No analogy is perfect nor is it intended to be. I think the analogy works just fine if Card approves of any healthy recreational activity that stimulates endorphins or any natural pleasure.
I don't even think that's necessary since I wasn't trying to create a perfect analogy I was trying to help people understand that there might be some way to explain Card"s reasoning besides labeling him a vicious hateful person.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? A Jew can never stop being Jewish in the eyes of God, but there've been any number of Jews over the millenia who've stopped identifying as Jews and simply assimilated. Who were, to draw a parallel to homosexuality, closeted or completely in denial. Who lived as non-Jews and were accepted as non-Jews.
In both cases, it's basically an issue of extortion. People say, "Hey, we'll treat you like human beings (even if you aren't really) so long as you hide who you are. So long as you're properly ashamed of who you are. Dare to raise your head and be okay with yourself, and we'll do all we can to make your life a living hell."
You know as well as I do that there are many many reasons Jews decide to live secularly or assimilate. Pressure from non-Jews (or extortion as you call it) is far from the sole reason and is at least in my my experience in the 21st century US not the most common reason. Jews abandon the practice of Judaism for many of the same reasons that other people abandon the religious teachings of their parents. It is even entirely possible that many Jews have abandoned Judaism not because of extortion but because they decided Judaism was wrong. I also no some people who choose not to engage in some forms of sexual activity they are drawn to (for example adultery) because they personally believe they are wrong and not just because of society pressure.
Second, you know as well as I that the Nazi's did not treat assimilated Jews any differently than non-assimilated Jews. If you had one grandparent who was Jewish, you were considered a Jew even if you converted to Christianity. That makes the Nazi form of anti-Semitism racial discrimination not religious discrimination.
And yes, I view religious discrimination as being fundamentally different from racial discrimination. I don't think it is acceptable but I still think that discriminating between people based on thei religious practices they choose to follow is fundamentally different from discriminating between people based on their ancestry. I also don't think its just to discriminate against practicing homosexuals, but I think it is fundamentally different from racial and ethnic discrimination.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, the Card quote saying that laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books is attributed as follows by the Wikipedia biography of Orson Scott Card, "Card, Orson Scott (1990). "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality". Sunstone Magazine." So it was a magazine article of 1990 which has been widely copied onto the Internet. A Google search turned up over 9500 copies of the quote, which suggests the Internet as a whole probably has at least 200,000. An author cannot easily deny or recall a quote which has gone viral in that fashion, although I believe OSC has made some efforts to explain what he wrote in its 1990 context. That I expect did not work.
As to your other two points, I basically agree. In regards to the first, I replied to Samprimary as follows at least two hours before you made your post,
quote:Samprimary said, "He unambiguously stated that homosexual sex should stay illegal." That is correct; and I should not have added "not that private sexual behavior should be punishable."
posted
"No analogy is perfect nor is it intended to be. I think the analogy works just fine if Card approves of any healthy recreational activity that stimulates endorphins or any natural pleasure."
I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect. Even though OSC believes that controls and delays are important for het sex as well, there is at least a socially acceptable expression of heterosexuality; there's no such thing for homosexuality in OSC's view.
However, let me point out that I agree that Card doesn't 'hate' gay people. It would be more accurate to say that his views on the interests of society are at odds with the interests and desires of gay people, and he seems relatively unconcerned about how that affects gay individuals.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't even say I'm insulting the guy, I'm just pointing out that a lot of what he says about gay people is kind of... well... not very nice, rather mean at that. It's only different in the sense that gays come in all races, all varieties of ability and the like, but you can't say it's totally not the same. A man can get beat up just for SEEMING gay. Kids get bullied for acting different than the so called mainstream says they should act. It is a form of discrimination, and a sad form because it's more acceptable than looking down on someone because of race or religion. None of those things make sense. I object soundly to folks using stereotypes or misunderstandings to justify making life difficult for a whole group of people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think he cares how happy or unhappy gay people are in their opposite-sex marriages.
His fear is that his daughter might not marry a man and have babies. So if OSC has no grandkids, what's the purpose of being a law-abiding member of society?
It's about reproductive security.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: ... If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. ...
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Ah, fresh from my RSS feeds.
quote:Renowned sexologist and sociologist Li Yinhe (李银河) in a recent blogpost on the lives of tongqi (同妻), heterosexual women who find themselves married to gay Chinese men (translation adapted from Yawning Bread):
I attended a forum that discussed the problem of 'homowives‘. The so-called ’homowife‘ (tongqi 同妻) is the wife (qi 妻) of a homosexual (tongzhi 同志). It has been said that China has 20 million male homosexuals, of whom 80 per cent would marry a woman. These women are the ’homowives‘, and there are 16 million of them.
The 'homowife' phenomenon is a phenomenon unique to China, seldom witnessed in other countries. In other countries, homosexuals would remain single or live together or marry other homosexuals. Very few would enter into a heterosexual marriage. This difference comes about because Chinese culture places such a great emphasis on marriage and reproduction, as to make them compulsory. ... The condition for 'homowives' is extremely tragic. At the seminar, there were 'homowives' who burst into tears as they spoke, leading all of them to hug each other for a good cry. Most days, they wash their faces with tears. I heard what I considered the most shocking testimony that from a woman who told of how she even doubted her ability to attract men -- why wouldn't her husband even want to look at her or touch her? Am I really that unworthy as a woman? She assumed that all men would treat her like that, not knowing that this is far from the truth. She did not dream that her husband would be gay. Under the circumstances, even the most beautiful and accomplished woman would not arouse him. .. They proposed a slogan: 'Homowife ends with me'. This slogan is full of hurt and also extends concern to those who may follow in their footsteps. The slogan gives one a feeling that it is a noble cause.
I hope the majority of male homosexuals do not enter into heterosexual marriages any more and spare a thought for the feelings of the homowife.
quote:I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect.
Would you say the same thing if the question were pedophilia or rape? I'm almost certain you wouldn't, even though I suspect sexual arousal and climax are very much the same for people who are drawn to those types of sexual activity. I suspect that even if science demonstrated a definitive genetic cause for pedophilia, you wouldn't consider it OK and would still want laws against it. If someone is only sexually attracted to children would you feel justified in saying "I get mine but yours is not OK? "
And just to pre-empt the argument, I DO NOT consider homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia or rape, that wasn't my point. I'm in favor of gay rights, civil unions and (under certain constraints) gay marriage,
My point is that almost everyone thinks that people should refrain from the types of sexual activity they see as harmful, regardless of how strongly they are drawn to those types of activities, Most people event support strict laws against types of sexual activity that they think are very harmful (like rape or pedophilia). If you start from the presumption that same gender sexual relations are inherently harmful, then the rest of the arguments are completely consistent with that premise.
The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention. And on this, I agree with you. I don't think the harm done to gay individuals that results from discriminatory laws is justified by the benefits it might have to the rest of society. But even if I did see those harms as being very significant, it would not indicate that I didn't have compassion for gay people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree. Heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are too similar to ignore the "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" aspect.
Would you say the same thing if the question were pedophilia or rape? I'm almost certain you wouldn't, even though I suspect sexual arousal and climax are very much the same for people who are drawn to those types of sexual activity. I suspect that even if science demonstrated a definitive genetic cause for pedophilia, you wouldn't consider it OK and would still want laws against it. If someone is only sexually attracted to children would you feel justified in saying "I get mine but yours is not OK? "
And just to pre-empt the argument, I DO NOT consider homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia or rape, that wasn't my point. I'm in favor of gay rights, civil unions and (under certain constraints) gay marriage,
My point is that almost everyone thinks that people should refrain from the types of sexual activity they see as harmful, regardless of how strongly they are drawn to those types of activities, Most people event support strict laws against types of sexual activity that they think are very harmful (like rape or pedophilia). If you start from the presumption that same gender sexual relations are inherently harmful, then the rest of the arguments are completely consistent with that premise.
The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention. And on this, I agree with you. I don't think the harm done to gay individuals that results from discriminatory laws is justified by the benefits it might have to the rest of society. But even if I did see those harms as being very significant, it would not indicate that I didn't have compassion for gay people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you know the crucial difference is "consent", The Rabbit. That's a substantial difference that is absent from the comparison of heterosexuality and homosexuality when pedophilia and rape are excluded. It provides full justification for saying "sorry, you can't indulge your sexual orientation, even as the rest of us get to indulge ours" to a pedophile.
Importantly, it is not about harm to society in those cases, but harm to individuals. We don't forbid rape because we don't want to live in a society where rape is tolerated (not that we do), but rather because rape is a gross violation of a person's individual rights.
And brings us back to the crucial question, as you noted:
quote:The important argument is whether the harms associated with homosexual relations (if they actually exist at all) are sufficient to warrant societal intervention.
Nearly every argument I've seen that attempts to demonstrate the harm to society rests on "homosexuality is bad" as a premise, not as a conclusion.
I don't think we disagree much at all, Rabbit, other than on how to analogize the argument that OSC made. It does absolutely make sense to engage OSC and others who agree with him on the question of what harm is done and whether it is outweighed by the harms of discrimination, and not to blow cycles on calling him hateful and bigoted and otherwise confirming his prophecy that those who disagree with him will dismiss him with those labels.
However I have not seen where OSC has engaged on that topic to any meaningful degree. I think both sides' loudest voices are arguing against and dismissing the worst-case interpretation of the opposition.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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 who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
I'm getting to this late. Things really crack around here sometimes.
Regardless of whether homosexuality is immoral, laws that no one has any intention of regularly enforcing really, really bug me. It's just begging for abuse.
There was recently an incident in my apartment building where the police responded to a shooting, did not find the fired weapon, but did find a sawed-off rifle, possession of which is a federal offense. They took the rifle, but no one was arrested. According to several law enforcement officers my husband talked to, if he had been found with such a weapon, he would have gone to jail for a very long time. I think that sucks, and I think it sucks that there are/were anti-homosexuality laws that could be brought against a gay person who just happened to be annoying for some other reason.
If all such unequal treatment could be done away with, I would happily pay for all the traffic violations I currently get away with because I'm little and cute and have big, brown eyes.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: OSC might be concerned about the effect of his suggested policies on heterosexual individuals as well. If gays do not marry one another, they may marry heterosexuals. It would seem to me that might lead to a lot of unhappy heterosexuals in such marriages, with consequences not only of unhappiness for them, but of an increase in child abuse and divorce. Those are things OSC seems not to want, yet I think them probable consequences of what he recommends.
True... I can't say that would lead to the sort of healthy families OSC wants and society needs.
Yes, but I think he's under the impression that if we shut up and marry members of the opposite sex, we'll just get over the whole gay silliness.
You may be right, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not thrilled with his views on heterosexual sex/marriage either.
From the article you quoted earlier:
quote: We Latter-day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter. So the regulation of sexual drives is designated not just to preserve the community of the Saints but also to improve and educate the individuals within it. The Lord asks no more of its members who are tempted toward homosexuality than it does of its unmarried adolescents, its widows and widowers, its divorced members, and its members who never marry. Furthermore, the Lord even guides the sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.
I'm not 100% sure what all that means, but there, I think, is a clue to his perception of sex in general.
Have you read his "Memory of Earth" books?
(Possible SPOILERS follow if you haven't read the books.)
It's been years since I read them so my memory is a bit off, but there was a homosexual character in them. When they get to Earth and have to repopulate, he takes a wife and barely manages to get two children on her. They end up forming a friendship/companionship though he never desires her.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Anyone who argues with me hates themselves because they know within their heart of hearts that I'm right.
Common. Anyone who denigrates and lambastes something they themselves have an affinity with is expressing a kind of self hatred. The Mexican immigrant child who grows up to be violently anti-immigration- the rich son of a Saudi oil baron with an abiding hatred of western decadence. I'm not in that equation- my own personal opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter when talking about the internally contradictory behaviors and beliefs of others, does it? Do you see something else in that? Am I perhaps projecting myself into it too much? Perhaps so, but I think you're being unfair to me here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Most of the gay people I know don't think that homosexuality is strictly a behavior, but for almost everyone who condemns it -- it is only the behavior part they condemn.
That's always struck me as strictly strategic though... I mean, just imagine a world in which the social structure completely condemned and had even totally eliminated homosexual acts from ever being performed. Would such a society then treat the people who were gay really well? I doubt it. This whole claim always struck me as first, a way of expressing your hatred or bigotry without sounding too extreme or unreasonable, and b) picking your battles wisely.
But more than that, I think the movement has internalized the denial to the point that its philosophy actually states, and its people actually really *do* believe, that they would all be fine with gays as long as gays stopped doing "gay stuff." Just like OSC may actually feel fine about gays in person, but still rail against them in theory- I have a hard time wrapping my head around what a world where these people actually won could possibly look like. They have every motivation to make it look idyllic, and I bet few of them really believe it would actually make anyone's lives worse than they are.
And in a weird sense I do wonder what it would be like myself. A world where homosexuality was totally suppressed. Would a person who was gay, but raised in such an environment, really be happy? There would be pretty much no way of testing such a scenario.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Card thinks homosexuality is both self destructive and harmful to society. If you don't but you'd like to understand him rather than call him names, substitute any behavior you think is destructive and harmful and see if his arguments make sense. If the arguments would make sense for something that you think is destructive and harmful, then Card isn't being hateful or engaging in some sort of paranoia, he just disagrees with you about what is destructive and harmful.
...
Off the bat, it's hard to trust someone who says they only dislike the activities of sexually active homosexuals and not homosexuals or homosexuality itself; doubly so if it's not even the sexual congress itself, but the harm it does society. I think a lot of heterosexuals feel a certain knee-jerk response to visible signs of homosexuality, and it's difficult to overcome the suspicion that that knee-jerk response underlies their rhetoric.
(For the record, I'm just noting that, not saying that Card's feelings on homsexuality have that kind of knee-jerk revulsion at their base. I have no wish to get into another "you say that, but your real motive is this" shoving match with anyone; until some kind of neural interface is included with broadband, these kinds of arguments are about as pointless as they come.)
But moving past that, I feel like I can make some fairly reasonable arguments against, say, the legalization of pedophilic contact between adults and children, even largely outside societal norms and moral standards. I've known people who survived rape at an early age and seen what it did to their emotional development. Even assuming a fully consensual adult-child sexual relationship (and ignoring the very real question of at what age someone can be said to be giving genuine informed consent to sex), there's still really unpleasant questions about if a child can be expected to protect themselves adequately from sexually transmitted diseases, protect themselves from pregnancy- what the effect might be of a pregnancy in someone who was barely post-puberty, the factor of physical intimidation in relationships and social courtships when one member is certainly the physically stronger of the two... Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
My point being, if I replace "homosexuality" with "pedophilia", I feel I can make a strong, compelling, and defensible case to just about any reasonable person.
When Card discusses homosexuality, I want to go, "Er... Uh? Hey!... But... No, that's not..."
Obviously, we come from very different backgrounds. If he says that most of the homosexuals he knows have some kind of sexual abuse in their backgrounds, for example, I don't doubt that's true... But his experience is far from mine. And that divergence in experience is frustrating; it makes me feel like he hasn't really looked very broadly before coming to quite extreme conclusions. And that having achieved certainty in his own mind, he hasn't tried very hard to test those conclusions.
Gay marriage is a relatively new social phenomenon, one which we don't have a lot of comparable phenomena to compare with to draw conclusions. But what we do have is a number of countries and even states that are beginning to allow it on some basis. If I saw some willingness to examine the path-setters over time and perhaps contemplate the possibility that gay marriage does not cause the streets to run with blood, so to speak, it would be a lot easier to accept the ideas offered as being rigorously examined and offered in good faith. Instead, it feels like an endless loop of "it is -> what it is -> what it is."
Certainly, people can disagree. But it's hardly unreasonable to ask that those who disagree be able to offer a followable chain of thought as to why they disagree, especially when so much is at stake.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know you know the crucial difference is "consent", The Rabbit. That's a substantial difference that is absent from the comparison of heterosexuality and homosexuality when pedophilia and rape are excluded.
Well actually, consent isn't the issue in the case of pedophilia as society and the court system have found over and over again. We do some sort of hand waving and say that a minor "can"t consent" to having sex with an adult but at some level we all know that is just hand waving. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear of cases where a minor girl or boy (say age 14) not only consented to sexual intercourse with someone 2 or 3 times their age but actually invited it. Consent isn't the only issue involved.
I really don't have much interest in continuing this argument. As I've said over and over again, I don't agree with Card's position on homosexuality, but I think I understand why people might share his views besides some sort of hatred or homophobia. It isn't just some irrational self serving idea that can be boiled down to I get mine but you can't have yours.
If you have no interest in trying understanding why decent people might hold that opinion, fine. But then I don't know why you participate in this sort of discussion except to vent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I earned that response, Rabbit. I have not demonstrated "no interest in trying to understand why decent people might hold that opinion." I haven't been venting. I think maybe you're reading between the lines too much. I'm not invested in the "OSC hates gays" point of view, at all.
Your assertion that consent isn't the key issue in statutory rape surprises me, though. I certainly thought it was. Can you help me understand what you mean? What's the issue, then? I'm pretty sure it doesn't come down to "yuck." Yes, the issue is meaningful consent. That's not hand waving, it's a recognition of an important difference between a child (or adolescent) and an adult.
quote:It isn't just some irrational self serving idea that can be boiled down to I get mine but you can't have yours.
I guess perhaps you thought I was boiling down OSC's point of view this way. I suppose I can see where that impression would come from. No, I don't think it boils down to this. Honestly I think it boils down to a religious belief. Less mind-readingly, I think it boils down to the reasoning that opposite sex pairings are crucial to civilization but also a fragile institution.
All I really wanted to point out is that OSC doesn't seem to acknowledge the price paid by gay individuals if society continues to condemn homosexual behavior. Sorry if that appeared somehow to be the same as believing that decent people could not hold the opinion.
(I'm really not all that puritanical, you see.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heterosexuals who have positive attitudes toward gay people may choose to believe that sexual orientation is innate so that they don’t have to assign moral responsibility for a choice that they would not make. Those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong may choose to believe that it is a choice, precisely so they can assign moral responsibility.
posted
I'm sorry about the misunderstanding scifi. The point of my original drug user analogy was solely that if you start from the premise that homosexual activity is self destructive and harmful to society, then the rest of Mr. Card's arguments don't seem hatefilled, fearful of irrational. Since you objected to the analogy, I figured that you objected to my point.
My intent with the drug user analogy was that many people think behaviors that are self destructive and harmful to established social institutions should be illegal for reasons other than hatred, hypocrisy, or irrational fear.
If your only objection was that homosexuality is not objectively as self destructive or harmful to society as drug use, then we are in complete agreement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?" I suppose I can see how you do- Mormons would have alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and other legal but abusable drugs outlawed in their perfect society. But what I have a hard time buying into is the idea that these very puritanical beliefs are not based initially on bigotry and hate, or at least xenophobia. The LDS church was a racist institution, like many churches, a very short time ago- was their rationalization against black ministers about the destruction of society I wonder?
You ask an interesting question: whether a sane rational person could have the right to disagree. I think it's perhaps a bit much to ask that we give anti-gay rights activists the benefit of the doubt in that regard. Perhaps we shouldn't assume they are *irrational,* but my understanding of the world definitely tells me they are misguided. But then it's always a bit like that episode of South Park where the atheists of the future fight over the best name for their league of atheists. No end to these kinds of conflicts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?" I suppose I can see how you do- Mormons would have alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and other legal but abusable drugs outlawed in their perfect society. But what I have a hard time buying into is the idea that these very puritanical beliefs are not based initially on bigotry and hate, or at least xenophobia.
Why is that hard to believe? I think it'd be a bit strange and very counterproductive to assume the reasons that OSC states for his position are not really why he believes what he believes, and instead posit secret motives that he won't admit, without any real evidence for that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've mostly stayed out of this particular version of this conversation, but I feel like I need to note that, no, consent is the only issue involved. It is not merely "hand-waving" to assert that minors are not capable of giving informed consent; the law in all its forms accepts the argument that children of a certain (unfortunately arbitrary, but that's for convenience's sake) age are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions and therefore incapable of consenting acceptably.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heterosexuals who have positive attitudes toward gay people may choose to believe that sexual orientation is innate so that they don’t have to assign moral responsibility for a choice that they would not make. Those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong may choose to believe that it is a choice, precisely so they can assign moral responsibility.
And those of us who are gay think the fact that y'all can argue about it instead of just asking those of us who know are pretty silly.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why is that hard to believe? I think it'd be a bit strange and very counterproductive to assume the reasons that OSC states for his position are not really why he believes what he believes, and instead posit secret motives that he won't admit, without any real evidence for that.
I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people? As I've said before, he spends most of his writing talking about how people are deceitful and self-deluded, talking about their true motivations. Shocker that I might suggest one with such an interest in that aspect of human nature is himself a part of it. I'm not saying I *know*, but it seems pretty stupid not to at least suspect this is the case.
Do you accept everything that everyone tells you all the time at face value? It works for basic stuff, but this is a fairly involved issue, and his position is, for lack of a better word, a bit contradictory.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people?
I have objected repeatedly when OSC writes about the "real secret motivations" of people he barely knows. I find it objectionable no matter who does it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've mostly stayed out of this particular version of this conversation, but I feel like I need to note that, no, consent is the only issue involved. It is not merely "hand-waving" to assert that minors are not capable of giving informed consent; the law in all its forms accepts the argument that children of a certain (unfortunately arbitrary, but that's for convenience's sake) age are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions and therefore incapable of consenting acceptably.
QFT and emphasis.
Thanks, Tom. You put this much more reasonably than I would have. -------
I don't think that "I get to have mine, only yours is not ok" is exactly right, but it is close. It is this incredibly smug sense that everyone should want to live the way that they do that is the problem. That unless people have families that look just like theirs, they aren't really families. That if people want something other than their kind of relationships, they are somehow sick or wrong or, at best, misguided. It is great that OSC has a family that works for him; it is arrogance to believe that because it works for him it must be imposed on everyone.
The Rabbit, I understand what you are saying. Yes. If one accepts OSC's premise then what follows is a natural conclusion requiring nothing extra hateful. But this ignores the fact that he is starting with a hateful premise and one that has no basis in anything but the idea that everyone should want to live like he does.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is this incredibly smug sense that everyone should want to live the way that they do that is the problem. That unless people have families that look just like theirs, they aren't really families.
While there are certainly people out there who are that way about these sorts of things, I think generally it's more likely to be a case of simple ignorance. That is, someone has one set of experiences with 'family', and everyone they know has a similar set of experiences, and so to them, that's 'Family'. Smug doesn't have to enter into it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Rabbit, do you really buy the idea that all of OSC's speech against equal rights has to do with homosexual activity being "self-destructive and harmful to society?"
Absolutely! That's what he says. Though I do not know OSC personally, I belong to the me church and know quite a few people who like OSC honestly and sincerely believe homosexual activity is self destructive. What's more, that hypothesis actually fits the data we know about OSC much better than your hypothesis. Based on what people who know OSC say, even what gay people who know him say, your explanation simply doesn't fit the data.
I'm sure there are other examples where it does fit the data but the fact that some people who disapprove of homosexuality are actually (insert your favorite condescending insulting explanation here), is not evidence that OSC shares those characteristics. I'm sorry but it just isn't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QB] I'm sorry about the misunderstanding scifi. The point of my original drug user analogy was solely that if you start from the premise that homosexual activity is self destructive and harmful to society, then the rest of Mr. Card's arguments don't seem hatefilled, fearful of irrational.
So if I started arguing, based on the cases of Kara Neumann and children like here, that all religious belief was deadly harmful, and therefore should be illegal, you are saying that it would be wrong to label this argument as hateful, fearful, and irrational?
Because there is a gigantic difference between beliving that something is harmful, and believing that one's personal opinions should be state law. The latter absolutely does not follow from the former.
quote:My intent with the drug user analogy was that many people think behaviors that are self destructive and harmful to established social institutions should be illegal for reasons other than hatred, hypocrisy, or irrational fear.
And lots of other people find those arguments fatally flawed, largely for the the same consent reason that everyone but you thinks is central to the question. If the arguments are flawed for drug use, then they are doubly flawed for living honestly as a gay person.
At least people who oppose the use of drugs can point to concrete, physical harm caused by their use and abuse(same as people who oppose the war on drugs can point to concrete harm caused by their criminalization). OSC can't point to any concrete harm caused by gay people living their lives the way they want to. That kills the analogy.
I don't see why you feel the need to translate to all us unthinking close-minded liberals what OSC is arguing anyway. He's written plenty. He's a writer. It's not like he's incapable of explaining himself adequately. If you think someone is mistaken about his argument, you should quote what he wrote, not explain to everyone what arguments you think he's trying to make. Then we can decide for ourselves what he's actually arguing. If, for instance, OSC really thinks that being gay is harmful (more harmful that choosing to be childless), you should be able to find a quote of him saying that.
If you can't, then you are probably not actually defending OSC's argument.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that The Rabbit is trying to defend OSC's argument. I think she is just making a case against taking such a hard line that we can't listen to what the the person we are arguing thinks the argument is. I think that The Rabbit is merely advocating listening as more useful tack to changing minds.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I stated multiple exams of people who do exactly this kind of thing. It's hard to believe because it's usually not true, in my experience. What would be "real" evidence? The kind of secret motivations that OSC posits day in and day out about other people?
I have objected repeatedly when OSC writes about the "real secret motivations" of people he barely knows. I find it objectionable no matter who does it.
That's fair.
There's no need here for you to get snippy about it (ala, your second post). We're allowed to disagree.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that The Rabbit is trying to defend OSC's argument. I think she is just making a case against taking such a hard line that we can't listen to what the the person we are arguing thinks the argument is. I think that The Rabbit is merely advocating listening as more useful tack to changing minds.
The Rabbit has a point -- it is fruitless to argue against somebody is you don't understand their argument and your points of disagreement. I've seen people do it on this message board and in real life countless times, arguing almost for the sake of arguing, without really listening. Sometimes, when I'm a neutral observer, it seems to me that they're not really disagreeing at all but can't get past their own wording choices.
In this case, I think there are two major points of disagreement that I have with Card on gay rights, based on his articles:
1. The role homosexuality plays on society and 2. The role government plays in society.
Putting bigotry aside, which is, after all, just a word, and not a useful one at that, I think the real problem boils down to those two things. Card thinks that homosexuality is fundamentally harmful to society and that if something is harmful to society, the government should step in.
I disagree on both counts, although the first more than the second. I do not believe homosexuality is harmful either to individuals or to society. If there were only three people left on earth and two of them were gay, we could talk.
As far as the role of government goes, that's a little trickier, because sometimes the government does step in for the greater good, but only when one person's rights conflict with another's. Government is not there to be our moral compass, especially when we're all trying to take it in different directions. You have to be careful when asking the government to step in due to "harm" to society -- because the will of the people can make such things happen in a representative government.
In any case, as Card himself is not here to tell any of us whether or not we have correctly understood his arguments, I find this entire conversation to be difficult at best, pointless at worst.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Kate and Christine, You are right. I'm not trying to defend Card's position, I'm trying to help people understand a different point of view without villifying it.
I'm really quite fed up with people on both sides of the gay right issue who are content to vilify the other side. I know people on both sides of this issue and it hurts me to see either side vilified. Its not true, it's not productive, it's not civil and it's not nice. I think if people were to make an honest attempt to understand the other side, we would make great strides toward finding a resolution that was acceptable to most everyone. But that won't ever happen if people are solely concerned about winning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
Which is why, as much as one tries to understand where he is coming from - actually especially when one understands - OSC's position is offensive.
Also, if one's religion requires one to hold an offensive belief, that does not excuse it from being offensive. The leadership of my own Church has an offensive position on gay marriage. I do not share that position. Whether or not someone can disagree with their religious leadership is up to them, but we don't get off the hook because we think that God agrees with us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
It is very human, however, to rationalize such behavior and to truly, deeply believe it that way. Maybe it's easier for me to understand because I've shifted from a strong anti-gay stance to a strong pro-gay stance, but I can assure you that I didn't change my mind because people told me I was a bad person filled with hatred and bigotry.
In fact, the most likely reason that I held that stance, the reason I held a lot of stances that I later flip flopped on, it because my parents did. And they were the strongest influence in my life before I went to college. But whatever the reason, I had a great bit of rationalization going on that was internally consistent. I don't see how that made me a mean, uncivil, and impolite person. If anything, I was nicer, more civil, and more polite back then. The older I get, the more hardened and cynical I become. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite.
Certainly the people subjected to this treatment won't think it's nice, civil, or polite.
But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not laws should be passed or struck down.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not trying to defend Card's position, I'm trying to help people understand a different point of view without villifying it.
When toddlers demand to get another cookie, the problem isn't that the parents don't understand what the toddler wants, or why. It's that the toddler doesn't have a right to eat cookies all day long. So what if OSC thinks that his reproductive security demands that the government not recognize any family structure that doesn't look like his? His rights don't supersede everyone else's to live their lives as they see fit.
Sorry, but only one side of this debate has a moral and rational leg to stand on. That's not always the case, but it is here.
Now, if you'd made an argument like "Well, sure, you are arguing from a standpoint of fairness and rights and consent and you totally win based on thsoe premises, but all they care about is premises X,Y and Z (conformity, not having to think about icky things, etc), and they just don't care about fairness or rights", that would have been a lot simpler, and you would have gotten less argument
Though frankly, when you made a whole post comparing rape to gay relationships, directed at people who defintately think that consent is the primary moral issue, and didn't once mention consent yourself, I have to wonder if you understand the arguments of gay marriage supporters as well as you think.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I think both sides' loudest voices are arguing against and dismissing the worst-case interpretation of the opposition.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
