posted
:sigh: Right. I have no evidence. Of course Scott. Let's start at Zero, because it's better for you.
I'm not making the argument, and with you I really don't care to. Personally I believe it. I also believe the argument *could* be made, if somebody had the patience to cut through your blindly happy devotion to a vision of the world in which one gets to say bigoted things all day long, and somehow not be a bigot. Why would I want to waste my time dealing with you on this? I don't.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: :sigh: Right. I have no evidence. Of course Scott. Let's start at Zero, because it's better for you.
I'm not making the argument, and with you I really don't care to. Personally I believe it. I also believe the argument *could* be made, if somebody had the patience to cut through your blindly happy devotion to a vision of the world in which one gets to say bigoted things all day long, and somehow not be a bigot. Why would I want to waste my time dealing with you on this? I don't.
posted
Evidence of harping. This is only a small selection and only from WorldWatch. Honestly, it was just to distressing to wade through those columns for very long.
quote:We really are forcing a shocking number of children to grow up in fatherless homes, by the choice of one or the other or both biological parents -- and it is considered "wrong" to criticize people who make that decision. (Remember Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown?)
Our culture really does promote pushing our children into day care even though it is obvious that children grow up happier and more civilized in a home where they have constant contact with parents who love them and spend time with them and care about helping them learn to make right choices.
We really do close our eyes to the fact that marriage has become almost meaningless, with couples living together without any respect for the right of society to expect them to make binding commitments, while those who have married are able to break that covenant at will, regardless of the cost to their own and other people's children.
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
What do you think it means?
If you want to talk about the 'commonly accepted definition,' look at wikipedia's article on the word.
Hatred of gay individuals is not a prerequisite for being what people generally term a homophobe. Self-declaring that you are tolerant of gay individuals is also a very poor method of indemnification, because the vast, vast majority of very obvious homophobes return time and time again to rely on that defense, in the 'don't get me wrong, I have gay friends / jamaican neighbors' vein.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Hm...I wouldn't consider those harping.
...mostly because the frequency isn't high enough to rate on my harping-o-meter, when compared with the other articles he's written. 4 articles over a space of...ten years isn't "harping." (And one of the articles isn't directly about nuclear families, but about whether America can win the culture war with Islam.)
I admit, though, I mostly agree with the first two statements that kmboots quoted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Four articles from one site out of the first six I skimmed. And one wasn't even about nuclear families yet he still harped on them!
I wasn't reading the whole columns. Honestly, they were just too unpleasant for the most part. I don't need the extra indigestion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I personally feel it is harping is that OSC didn't present it as, "I feel this is the better way." or "If the situation allows, this is preferred." he presented the argument that as "This does harm to society."
Is being a millionaire better then being poor? Hell yes it is. Some of us parents don't have the luxury of not both working. I myself am about to be in that situation.
If he feels so strongly about it, he can donate some funds to the well being of my children so I don't have to put them in day care and work.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, no, kate, it's not that. It's just that if you don't engage in profoundly biblical sex and act like a good mormon wife, then you won't "weave in" to society and you will be an outcast with a hole where your heart should be, that will only ever be filled if you get married and have lots of babies.
And you should take this from the person who married at a very young age who grew up in a subculture where that was the only accepted course of action, and who has never known anything else. For some reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If OSC only supported homosexual acts being illegal because he was addressing a particular audience at a particular time, at which audience and at which time do we need to bring him in front of so that OSC ends up stating his support for same-sex marriage?
Perhaps he can say something like "Same-sex marriage needs to be made legal, not because we want to encourage sin, but in order to discourage irresponsibility and lack of commitment in the gay population."
Then, given a particular audience, he can then explain to the LDS church that he just didn't believe that particular audience would be interested to hear the opinion in a person that didn't want to support same-sex marriage.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history, and everything I have learned has led me to question the notion that what I am told is "traditional" and "normal" must be so.
Traditional in what tradition? In the traditions of 19th century America? In what segment of society?
The only "traditional family" I am aware of in history was an invention of 20th century marketing that appealed to Americans who craved a sense of stability and normality in a consumer-driven lifestyle. Many people need to be told that what they are doing is ok- that the choices they are making are "normal" and "traditional." I'm sorry, but that's Bollocks. And it doesn't stand the test of any actual history I'm aware of- even the limited scope of American history, among just the white middle classes.
I guess you must have been talking about the "traditional family" that sent the kids off to work in factories at the age of 8. Oh no, you were talking about the "traditional family" in which the mother could expect to die in childbirth and be replaced by a second wife. Or the "traditional family" that could expect half of its children to survive to adulthood, or of course the "traditional family" that sold its daughters off as soon as possible to husbands who needed them to produce sons to work on a farm.
No wait, you meant the "traditional family" where it was acceptable to marry your first cousin. The "traditional family" where the wife was treated as the property of a husband, and was of course not given the right to vote, because in a "traditional family," the man is responsible for those kinds of decisions.
Traditional family my ass. It's a product you bought, and you just don't realize it. And you couch it in terms of "the destruction of the traditional family," as if there was some cherished institution where all of these things went on and everybody was just so satisfied and morally fulfilled by it all, and now it's *DESTROYED* because we are more permissive of different behaviors.
How has society become *more* permissive anyway? You can't beat your wife or sell your kids for labor, or own slaves, or buy politicians outright anymore. Seems society has gotten a little touchy on the subject. You can't even lynch fags anymore. What is the world coming to??? I would say as a straight, white, middle class male, society has become a little less permissive for me. No marrying my cousins for me no matter how attractive. DAMN you liberals and your destruction of my traditions.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So you admit you were full of crap, then. Good.
If that's what it takes to make ya feel better, sure. Like I said, I solve problems. I'm here for you guys (no homo)
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
You know, I can see where you think that he's making judgments against individuals; in my opinion his arguments definitely work better applied to general practices.
I think, for the most part, that's the intention of his essays.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
It is wrong to say that, as a general practice, child care leads to worse outcomes than stay-at-home parenting. The truth is a great deal more nuanced. Factors like socioeconomic status have a more significant and consistent effect.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check the second part of OSC's statement regarding childcare, Juxtapose. It's an important element, too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
You know, I can see where you think that he's making judgments against individuals; in my opinion his arguments definitely work better applied to general practices.
I think, for the most part, that's the intention of his essays.
Yeah, definitely. He's too much of a good person, deep down, and far too politic, to look into an individual's face, and actually say the things he says about them as a part of a group. He can stand himself as long as the vitriol is generic and cast upon the unseen backs of imagined terrors.
But hey, that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Maybe you see more of it than I do? You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
I'm glad to see that we agree that OSC is a good person. I'll disagree that you have to look deep down for it: it's fairly evident on the surface, in the way that he treats people. While his essays get heated-- more than I'm comfortable with-- he is more than gracious in person. OSC is the kind of man who, no matter where he is, he seems at ease, comfortable; and more than that, he puts OTHERS at ease. I've met lots of writers and publishers and editors in my time; there are few as entertaining, and wholly enjoyable as OSC.
So it's not just that he's a good person-- he makes other people feel good, too. That counts for a lot, in my book.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Maybe you see more of it than I do? You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
I expect I do. For one thing, I know petulance doesn't suit you.
quote: So it's not just that he's a good person-- he makes other people feel good, too. That counts for a lot, in my book.
It would certainly have to in order to excuse the words of a bigot. I'm sure he's a very nice man. Many people who know me in daily life often refer to me as a teddy bear. As I said, he's far too politic to let the cowardly things he does in writing come out around other people, where he would feel responsible for having said them to *Real People*.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I have found OSC to be nothing but kind and gracious.
What some of you are failing to realize is this: an opinion on a topic (homosexuality, for example) doesn't equate to an oppression of a people.
If I think families should be one husband, one wife, and the kids, then that is my opinion. I will find a wife who believes the same and we will raise our kids with that morality. That *doesn't* mean that I am trying to oust gay people (or single parents, or orphans, or any other type of family) from society. I am simply saying "I believe that this is the type of family God intended."
If Mr. Card's opinions really bother you that much - if you put so much stock in something someone says that you haven't even ever met or talked to - then I'd say the problem lies in YOU. You think you are a victim. You want social acceptance, NOT moral equality.
And you are a whiny baby.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: the word "bigot" is easy to throw around when you are personally offended. But just because someone disagrees with you on a moral issue, that doesn't mean they are a bigot.
Disagreeing with somebody does NOT equal oppression or hatred.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Mr. Card's opinions really bother you that much - if you put so much stock in something someone says that you haven't even ever met or talked to - then I'd say the problem lies in YOU. You think you are a victim.
Another first post?? How charming! How many alts do you have anyway?
I don't really know how to respond to this in a way that will make sense to you. You are wrong. I don't put stock in what OSC says about gays, but he has a public profile and a voice. His words are published and read. I have a right, and in my opinion, a moral duty, to voice my opposition to those words, and to show solidarity for those that OSC speaks out against. In the sense that this concerns my obligations to my own ethical values and the people in my country and my life who I care about and wish to see given the rights that I believe they deserve, then yes, this is about me. But the problem lies with me? I feel like a victim? Why? I'm not the subject of much of OSC's bigotry. Some, I think, but most is not directed at people like me, not in the way that I see myself, so it's hard to feel victimized. But still, this is my problem? Because I disagree with someone, and have the temerity to say so? This is something I need to work out? I shouldn't disagree with people?
So the fact that you have a problem with what I'm saying is actually *your* problem? How does this logic work exactly? Or are you one of those people who just says things that sound good to you without actually logically parsing it out and deciding what you actually think any of it means? What the hell do you mean?
No, the fact that OSC is bigoted against homosexuals and those who advocate for the rights of homosexuals and their security in our society makes me call him a bigot. The fact that he personally offends me wit these opinions does not make him a bigot.
And yes, disagreeing does not equal oppression. However, *advocating oppression* does, to a degree, equal oppression.OSC advocates, and has continually advocated the oppression of homosexuals. The fact that he disagrees with the ideas of homosexuals is one thing- the fact that he actively stumps for laws that oppress them and limit the rights that they deserve, in order to serve his vision of the makings of a moral society, is another.
He would LOVE to convince everyone that it's "just a disagreement!" And that calling him a bigot is unfair, and that actually, we all have the right to our opinions. We do. But advocate the overthow of the government to stop gays from marrying, and I will call you a bigot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's where you're mistaken. If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality.
And guess what? In most of the states it has been offered, the idea of homosexual union has been defeated handily for the same reason OSC proposes.
I, for one, voted against it in Oregon. Oregon is very liberal (in some parts) but if FAILED here.
What you call bigotry, I call the minority complaining *because* their views aren't accepted as normal or moral.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
They'll know that I don't hate any person for what they do or what they believe. It is personal choice. But as for me and *my* house, we will do what God commands until they are old enough to move out.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware that Card had confined his speech on homosexuality to simply expressing opinions, Dustin. Here I thought he was some sort of...*activist* or something.
Oh, and really-expressing an opinion doesn't make one a bigot. Expressing a bigoted opinion, however, if truly stated-well in itself that doesn't either. But it's a solid indicator of what's there.
---
Scott, everything I've heard of Card in person is similar to what you say. But then again...well, for the purposes of this discussion, you're almost exactly Card's personal demographic, aren't you? Mormon, father, writer, heterosexual, committed family man, etc. I'd be surprised if he *wasn't* gracious to you.
I'm not at all sure, however, how gracious he would be to an open homosexual in a long-term, committed relationship who, say, wishes to marry and adopt or have a child together. I'm not sure what his reaction would be if they were to say, politely, "You've said some very hurtful, untrue things about me-not directly, but as a member of a group-and I wish you'd stop."
Would he tailor his remarks for a socially liberal, openly homosexual monogamous person? Would he be the 'for the Mormons' Card? Or, worst of all, would be be the World Watch Card, and reply with something along the lines that as soon as the liberal stopped working to destroy America and the family, he'd stop saying so?
I don't know why we ought to give him a pass or continually excuse or qualify public political words he says. Does he *mean* them? Is he working to see that public policy reflects them? The answer to the former I suspect is true, but the latter is a question of fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But that's where you're mistaken. If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality.
Google the phrase "might is right." Some interesting reading there I'm sure you'll enjoy. It certainly had a big influence on some European politicians in the early 20th century.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: What you call bigotry, I call the minority complaining *because* their views aren't accepted as normal or moral.
Oh, you're a gem. You are. I bet you're a "patriot" too. I bet you go on and on about freedom and democracy. Never mind those stupid "founding principles" like avoiding "oppression of the masses." Not when we're talking about f**s.
quote: Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
And you worship a God of hate. Well that's nice for you, I hope you enjoy that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, if something is illegal, supporting its continued illegality *cannot* be bigoted, Dustin? Am I understanding you correctly? Because that is a baffling stance to take.
quote:And guess what? In most of the states it has been offered, the idea of homosexual union has been defeated handily for the same reason OSC proposes.
It'd be neat if we were both on this forum in ten, twenty years to see what your thoughts on this will be. Twenty years ago, the idea of homosexuals marrying wouldn't have passed muster *anywhere* on the state level. It wouldn't even have been a contentious political issue. Now we're at the 'in most states' stage. I think you know what comes after that, and I wonder-in light of your 'God hates it but I don't hate them!' rhetoric-how strong your respect for our representative system will be then.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Redacted. I felt a point that was made needed to be addressed, but I didn't feel good about doing something to swing this thread more into the personal, and really regretted wading into this thread period. Since nobody's responded to what I said yet, I don't feel bad for removing the text of my post.]
My purpose in posting that isn't what you seem to think it is; I'm not advocating you give him and his ideas a pass. I'm balancing Orincoro's uninformed evaluation of the man's character with truth.
When we get back to discussing his ideas, rather than his character, I'll happily do so. It should not be a difficult thing to do-- we've got 10 years of World Watch to look to for evidence.
posted
My point is that for this conversation, I'm simply wondering how relevant your personal experience is. I'm not questioning your interpretation, rather the application. You are, after all, on many levels in the general sense quite unlikely to be the person he would treat unjustly, if there was anyone he would.
Straining for an example here, a member of the Nation of Islam might say Louis Farrakan is the soul of courtesy and kindliness, but we wouldn't consider that very conclusive as to how he behaves personally with Jews. That takes the comparison further than it should, but it's accurate to my meaning in type but not degree.
As for World Watch...well, yes we could but I'm wondering what he could say, at this point, that wouldn't get overturned by his personal courtesy and niceness or rejected as only a small sample or dismissed as out of context.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My purpose in posting that isn't what you seem to think it is; I'm not advocating you give him and his ideas a pass. I'm balancing Orincoro's uninformed evaluation of the man's character with truth.
With opinion. With *your* opinion. Based on a different set of facts, but still your opinion. Let's be clear.
Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have. You met him a couple of times and you're the expert, why? Because I don't live close enough and am too young to have had time in my professional life to meet him? Because we aren't members of the same church? Why exactly do you know better about his character because he was nice to you when you talked to him?
And you make sarcastic implications that *I* put on airs of personal experience others don't have?
At least i know the difference between what my opinions are, and what the facts may be. You haven't got a clue, obviously.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I may be entirely wrong, but I didn't read Scott's comments as sarcastic nor implications, but giving you credit for possibly knowing something he does not. What leads you to believe that his comment was not sincere?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Check the second part of OSC's statement regarding childcare, Juxtapose. It's an important element, too.
I did. He makes it sound like day care and loving parenting are mutually exclusive. It's just the one part of the worldview he's espousing that I find personally grating, especially because he rather goes out of his way to make the statement into an absolute.
Anyway, it sounds like you'really busy, and you've got plenty of people directing posts at you, so I'm willing to drop it. Thanks for your civility.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Orincoro, I may be entirely wrong, but I didn't read Scott's comments as sarcastic nor implications, but giving you credit for possibly knowing something he does not. What leads you to believe that his comment was not sincere?
quote: You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
It fits a pattern I've experienced with him. He rides a line between sarcasm, sincerity, and criticism that is unique to him.
Here he reminds me of my relative age and lack of certain experiences by falsely noting my worldliness, as if I am a constant braggart about my travels.
These qualities, particularly "debonair" and "sophisticated," could only be mocking the image of myself that I project, since he hasn't met me. So by mocking the image that I am responsible for, he implies that I consider myself to be debonaire and sophisticated, implies that I project that image (and poorly) and that I am therefore, falsely, of the belief that I understand the subject we are discussing better than he does, and moreover, am attempting to appeal to my own authority as a "man of the world," to win an argument I can't win on merit. And in contrasting us, he portrays himself as humble, eminently wiser, and more patient than I.
And he does this all in such a way as to get the effect, which is to insult me, and to avoid the consequence, which is to be seen as provocative rather than reasonable. He never wants to be seen as the provocateur. He's the calm rational center of the universe about which chaos reigns. That's his role.
And stop before you accuse me of making assumptions. I'm voicing my thought process. If that's wrong, he can say so. If he didn't mean to be sarcastic, he greatly misjudged my tolerance for wan praise.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
And you're not a homophobe, I'm sure.
quote:They'll know that I don't hate any person for what they do or what they believe. It is personal choice. But as for me and *my* house, we will do what God commands until they are old enough to move out.
And if your child comes out as gay when they're 15 or so? Says there's no way around it? What do you do then?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted.
It seems your definition for bigotry is just "a minority opinion", and therefore bigotry can't be bigotry if it's a majority opinion.
If society - as a majority - decides that gay people should be executed -- is *that* not bigoted either?
If society - as a majority - decides that Mormonism or Judaism is illegal, is that not bigotry either?
Mind you, I'm not interested in *debating* your definitions, I just want to understand if said definitions are consistent in your own mind.
quote:And you're not a homophobe, I'm sure
It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history,
quote: Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have.
Orincoro,
I love it when someone summarizes their academic resume' as a preamble to their posts. It's totally bolsters their credibility. And it definitely doesn't make them seem hopelessly insecure or desperate for approval at all
quote: Yeah, definitely. He's too much of a good person, deep down, and far too politic, to look into an individual's face, and actually say the things he says about them as a part of a group. He can stand himself as long as the vitriol is generic and cast upon the unseen backs of imagined terrors.
But hey, that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
quote:Many people who know me in daily life often refer to me as a teddy bear.
Look on the bright side buddy. At least being a "teddy bear" in person, but a scathing and acrid commentator when insulated by the anonymity of an internet forum could never be interpreted as the exact same cowardice.
I mean, keyboard commandos never hypocritically accuse people of engaging in the same behaviors in which they themselves are neck deep.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Speaking of EVIDENCE, by the way: Janice Ian.
I noticed she calls OSC a Republican in that post.
For shame, doesn't she know OSC is a Democrat? Despite the fact that he doesn't seem to have voted for any Democrat ever, his whole life.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What impresses me about her response is that she wrote it after he wrote the bit below, which he wrote just a few months after choosing to attend her same-sex marriage in Canada (and which is the same infamous article in which he hints at armed revolution should courts in this country find that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right):
quote:The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.
But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.
So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is. Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage. They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
Note that she held the wedding in Canada, she writes, precisely because she could: because it was the first opportunity she had to legally marry her partner. But in Card's view, this ceremony he attended is an attempt to strike a "death blow" against his own "real" marriage. And either she's cool with that, or isn't particularly introspective.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, another article to consider after looking through the older World Watch articles. I think the objection to same-sex marriage is implicit, but noticeablely not emphasized.
quote:As monogamy collapses, as marriage becomes an afterthought to reproduction, as young people delay marriage, as men are pushed or drawn out of any meaningful role in more and more households, as philandering Alpha males and opportunistic Loser males face no penalty for their actions and are encouraged in some of them, the role of women becomes less and less secure, children lose faith in everything, and the net national happiness plummets.
The old rules promoted sexual fidelity and universal lifetime monogamy, rearing children in stable families headed by role model fathers and mothers. The fact that no marriage was perfect does not change the fact that the model was worth aspiring to and measuring ourselves against. The replacement rules do the opposite. Who is happier?
quote:A Strong, Good Culture can tolerate a certain amount of deviance -- as long as it is marked as deviant behavior. A few rapacious businessmen, a few adulterous Alpha males, a few secret alcoholics, a few atheists on the faculty -- these don't damage the Stories of the Strong, Good Culture, in part because they prove the culture's self-story of tolerance.
But when the deviancy from the norms becomes the norm, and the people who keep to the rules of stability, decency, fairness, fidelity, loyalty, faith, honor, generosity, courage, respect, conformity, and consistency are depicted as deviant in the replacement stories, then you're looking at a society that has decided to die.
posted
Uh.... How exactly is homosexuality immoral anyway? There are places where gays can get KILLED for being gay. Is that actually more moral than being gay? I don't even get it. That kind of makes Janis Ian a bit better than OSC to be honest. That she can still be his friend despite how downright mean he gets in his articles. Very nice of her because how the heck is homosexual marriage an act of intolerance? I will have children and teach them that it's OK to be gay, to be compassionate towards everyone really because despite being a heathen that's what I believe in!
Dress up in their parents' clothes? How is that not homophobic?
That article bugs me so much. It's just... I just do not agree with it. How is this culture strong and good when so much screwed up stuff went down? Does pointing it out really destroy the culture or expose it for what it is? An unstable lie? And who needs a culture built on lies?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syne, is this really still a thing for you? I mean, how many times over the years have you asked these same questions?
It seems to boil down to this: "That article bugs me so much. It's just... I just do not agree with it."
You need to get past that. There are people out there who will do things with which you disagree. And you may not think their reasons for doing those things are sufficient. But while it's fine to point out what you think are the flaws in their reasoning, or the negative consequences of those actions, you should really stop acting like you're astonished that contrary opinions exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |