felice Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 In their minds it is being changed if legalized. Especially when allowed by religious institutions.What kind of mind thinks human laws in a single country can change the definition of something decreed by God? Of course religious institutions can already choose to recognise or not recognise same sex marriages, and legalising it wouldn't make the slightest difference to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artas Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 but I'd say that marriages of utter atheists can be just as "valid".You don't see marriage as an exclusively religious institution, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noontidal Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 You don't see marriage as an exclusively religious institution, then? Well, according to the Bible, marriage came before any religious institution. What could that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 You don't see marriage as an exclusively religious institution, then?Well it's a "religious institution" insofar as it was invented by God, and I don't doubt He would rather we recognize that when we make use of His invention, but we often don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 You don't see marriage as an exclusively religious institution, then?Well, according to doctrine, God created man and woman for each other to come together ultimately in marriage. Although it is encouraged to only marry people of the same religion, it is not a qualifier. Basically one must have a penis and one must have a vagina and take their vows, that is the only actual requirement for marriage. Though there are some who look down upon secular marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 out of curiosity doesn't it seem that he admitted he is homophobic with this statement from yesterday:"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute." -- Orson Scott Card.but he is apparently afraid the homosexuals are going to retaliate against him! That would sugges that he is afraid of homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 out of curiosity doesn't it seem that he admitted he is homophobic with this statement from yesterday:but he is apparently afraid the homosexuals are going to retaliate against him! That would sugges that he is afraid of homosexuals.Didn't he say people should fight to overthrow the government if gay marriage became the law of the land?I don't see what's intolerant about boycotting the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Intolerance is something that's thrown around quite a bit, especially by people who are themselves intolerant. As far as I know, this guy used to advocate for the prosecution of gay people solely for the purpose of intimidating them, repeatedly and cheerfully links homosexuals with child abuse and rape, and works for the NOM, a group that I understand to be fairly hateful towards gay people. It's hardly unreasonable for a gay person to not want to give their hard-earned money to someone like this, any more than it would be intolerant for me as a black person not to want to give my hard-earned money to the Grand Wizard of the KKK.To me, it would be intolerant if we sought to criminalize Card's speech (the way he wanted to criminalize homosexual sex) or tried to have him hurt or killed. But I do not think that it is intolerant to simply decline to watch his movies, any more than we decline to attend Westboro Baptist Church rallies and Prussian Blue concerts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneliestMonk Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 MM,Sorry for how totally semantic this is, but in addition to it being reasonable for a gay person to boycott the movie, it's equally reasonable for a straight person who thinks the bile he spews is repulsive to boycott the movie. Also, I'm not black(as far as I know... I AM adopted) but I'd never support the grand wizard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Oh, definitely. I was just trying to relate to the perspective of someone who this guy has devoted a large portion of his life, money, and energy attacking. If the KKK started a fundraiser, I wouldn't think any less of someone who chose not to donate to them explicitly because of their views. That's not a freedom of speech violation; in fact, if you believe that money is speech, not contributing your personal funds to someone you disagree with politically is a valid expression of free speech and not even remotely intolerant.(I also don't think it's intolerant for someone to choose not to give money to Obama For America, or to the Republican National Convention, or Harvard University, or the Catholic Church, or the NAACP, or Swiftboat Veterans For Truth, or NARAL Pro-Choice America; I don't think anyone has an ethical obligation to see a movie, read a book, buy a painting, donate to a political group, or attend a speech.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneliestMonk Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I figured you agreed, I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be the one attacked by a message to not support it. I know it probably goes without saying, but I wanted to throw it out there just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 The one issue that I can see is boycotts create an intertwining between a person's opinion and the service - in this case entertainment - being offered.This can just as easily be used to effectively silence progressive issues as it can to further them. Now, I don't know if this is a compelling enough argument to go see Ender's Game - assuming you'd have seen it if OSC had different views - but [it] is an argument worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneliestMonk Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Do you mind elaborating on that Sci? It seems like you are saying that conservatives could boycott progressive artists the same way. I'm not really against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Me neither. I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to support an artist who says or does something they disagree with, especially if that artist pours a lot of money into political advocacy. Liberal or conservative doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Do you mind elaborating on that Sci? It seems like you are saying that conservatives could boycott progressive artists the same way. I'm not really against that.It's not limited to a conservative/liberal divide or artists, but yeah people boycotting a business might keep people from making stands on a variety of subjects.This is a good and bad thing obviously, as in some cases it only makes sense to boycott. After all, more money in Card's pocket is more money for him to support an anti-LGBT rights agenda.OTOH, it's disconcerting to think people not as rich as card [Card] who might by sympathetic to, for example, trans* rights[,] may not openly say so for fear of losing customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneliestMonk Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I see your point Sci, but my support for everyones right to use their money to support their beliefs doesn't outweigh my support of the trans community. Also, practically, I just don't see many people boycotting anything over transphobia. I just haven't ever met anyone who is fervently against transexuals. I could be wrong, but I really haven't seen any real anti-trans movement. It's just not on the radar the way homosexuality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A wilding Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 "Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute." -- Orson Scott Card.And that is at best disingenuous, because he is still working hard to delay or outright prevent gay marriage legalisation and to generally make it as legitimate as possible for people to be intolerant towards gays.And my understanding, though IANA(US)L, is that the eventual total legalisation of gay marriage is nothing like as legally certain as he is pretending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yagathai Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Short answer: yes. Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I see your point Sci, but my support for everyones right to use their money to support their beliefs doesn't outweigh my support of the trans community. Also, practically, I just don't see many people boycotting anything over transphobia. I just haven't ever met anyone who is fervently against transexuals. I could be wrong, but I really haven't seen any real anti-trans movement. It's just not on the radar the way homosexuality is.Just to be clear, I don't plan on giving OSC any money.I was just bringing up the one way I saw his complaint as possibly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.