The Real Will Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='ldygrffn' post='1708944' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.53']when we use the word marriage, are we talking about a Christian ceremony, or a Muslim ceremony, or a Navajo ceremony, or a Hindu ceremony..... the united states recognizes the religious ceremonies of a vast array of believers, some of whom have nothing in common in their spiritual practices beyond the fact that, in the English language, the term for life partnership is called "marriage." yes, for each of these religions, marriage is a spiritual bonding of two souls for eternity, or whatever, but even two athiests can be legally married, as long as they are of opposite sexes.[/quote] We are talking about marriage as it is defined under the law. As has been mentioned, religion is a side issue entirely and it is for individual religions to decide who they will marry. If every religion refused to marry gay people they would still have numerous secular options they could pursue. I had something particularly snarky to say about "even two atheists", but I'm going to bite my tongue. I'm am often slightly startled when I encounter people who equate marriage with religion, but I guess it's understandable if that has been you upbringing. Still, it's national law and not religious practice that I think is the issue. [quote name='ldygrffn' post='1708944' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.53']so, if we prohibit the marriage of two consenting and intellectually sound adults, who, btw, could possibly be of one of the several Christian denominations who accept homosexuals, how is this not state-sanctioned bigotry?[/quote] That is absolutely what it is. I find it impossible to see it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldygrffn Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 will, i cant do the quote thing, so i will just apologize for the atheist part, not reflective of my views, just poorly worded. :leaving: i was comparing it to the fact that the common argument against gay marriage is religion, and trying to compare it to the other people who are allowed to marry, under law. also, i did just edit to point out where my argument ties in with why i believe that orson scott card is a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='ldygrffn' post='1708959' date='Mar 5 2009, 22.20']will, i cant do the quote thing, so i will just apologize for the atheist part, not reflective of my views, just poorly worded. :leaving: i was comparing it to the fact that the common argument against gay marriage is religion, and trying to compare it to the other people who are allowed to marry, under law. also, i did just edit to point out where my argument ties in with why i believe that orson scott card is a bigot.[/quote] It's not a problem. Like I said, it didn't take me long to decide that snark wasn't really called for. And clearly I agree with you with regard to Card. He is a bigot. Although I think your original point is probably more noteworthy. That individuals, no matter how famous, are bigoted is not surprising. We all know that there is a fair degree of bigotry left in the world. That bigotry is still institutionalised in our laws ought to be shocking though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I feel honored that Lupigis quoted my previous post. :) Language does change. The meaning of "bigot", by the way, has also changed within my lifetime. If you look at older dictionaries, a "bigot" used to be someone who was utterly prejudiced in every aspect of his or her life. You couldn't be called a "bigot" just because you held vile irrational prejudices against one particular group of people; you were only a "bigot" if you thought everyone who was different from you was inferior and shouldn't have equal rights. But the common use of words in a hyperbolic way eventually leads to a broadening of their meaning, and today someone is a "bigot" if they only have one prejudice, just as "terrific" no longer means "terrifying". I do think that sometimes changes in language can have negative consequences that makes clear thinking about an issue more difficult. Since I'm a psychologist, I think the extension of "homophobia" to mean simply "prejudice against homosexuals" is one of those instances. Most psychologists who are experts on this, like Greg Herek of UC Davis, just use the term "anti-gay prejudice" in their research to avoid the confusing aspects of the term "homophobia". As to OSC, I think one has to remember that his views come from completely buying into the official LDS theology of the family. I haven't read much OSC, but I did read the first three volumes of his [i]Homecoming[/i] series. There is a gay male character in that series, and he ends up marrying a woman in order to reproduce, which OSC presents as his only choice for real happiness. As I understand it, in LDS theology one has to be a parent (either biologically or through adoption) in order to make it into the highest level of heaven in the afterlife. This makes the LDS attitude toward gays and lesbians even more problematical than those of other conservative Christians. If you are a strict Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist, you at least think that celibacy is an option, and that celibates are equal in the sight of God to married people. But in the LDS, singles, gay or straight, just aren't equal to married parents in a very basic theological sense. This leads OSC into a view of life which I call "the mysticism of reproduction." I think he really believes that one cannot be truly happy or psychologically sound if one is not a parent. He seems to understand that there is a tradeoff for lesbian and gay people, where they will not be as happy in a heterosexual marriage as heterosexuals are. But he seems to me to believe that a heterosexually married gay parent, though not as well off as a straight parent, will still be better off both spiritually and emotionally than a gay person in a same sex relationship. That's one reason why I think a term like "homophobia" makes understanding this more difficult. It gets people to think that OSC's position is just because he's disgusted by "buttsex". That's a distortion of where he's coming from, and if people want to effectively counteract the influence of OSC and the LDS heirarchy on this issue, they have to realize that it's much more complex that just an "icky feeling" about gay sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meili Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I interpret 'homophobic' as being hateful at worst and at best thinking of homosexuals as a seperate, not good and even less 'human' if you will. I always think of the terms racist and homophobic hand in hand. I would say he doesn't fall under the term because I doubt he thinks of gays as lesser people, less intelligent or 'human' but I would say he has a bias against them and his religious views certaintly do deny people who practice and prefer homosexuality certain benefits but has nothing against them as people or think of them as 'lesser' than him on any personal level. I don't see any fear, hate or ill wishes against individuals at all but there are biased views against the practice. I think (and you might disagree) a good example would be the views of someone who thinks eating cows is okay but they think eating dogs is gross and vice versa. Each group would want the the eating of the seperate animals to have limits and think the food of choice is digusting but there would be no hatred or ill will against the person doing so. But if someone hated the person who eats said animal, thinks the person himself is less than him or harbours ill will against him would be, I guess an example term would be 'dogaphobic or cowaphobic'. Does that make sense? ETA Added a word or two like "the". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Awesome post, Ormond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filippa Eilhart Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 agreed. great post Ormond :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Not again... Hasn't anyone a better hobby than casting stones at Orson Scott Card? I suppose in a certain sense the accusation is true - he is afraid of what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed. By this definition "homophobia" is not at all a bad thing. And the miscegenation analogy is ridiculous - whatever the law, no one denied a union between a black man & a white woman was "marriage". But the current effort is to actually redefine the word. You see OSC never tried to oppose homosexuals from marrying - or even from marrying each other. He would be perfectly willing for a homosexual man & a homosexual woman to be joined in matrimony. A good if rather dated essay by OSC on the topic is [url="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html"]here[/url]. Few probably realize that OSC's politics are quite far from classical conservatism. He identifies as Democrat, supports affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and gun control, and opposes creationism and the "Christian Right". On an aside, OSC has just turned in the [url="http://www.taleswapper.net/movies/endersgame/endersgame_update.html"]latest screenplay copy[/url] for the [i]Ender's Game[/i] film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='The Man' post='1708838' date='Mar 4 2009, 23.44']Yes. He doesn't want them to have the same rights heterosexuals have, namely to marry the individuals of their choosing. Therefore he is a homophobe. This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.[/quote] I'm not sure I'd call it homophobia, but he certainly seems to be confused about the difference between church and state, and their proper spheres of influence. And his position is utterly inconsistent if he's not willing to legislate all his religious prohibitions--e.g., the famous Mormon injunction against "hot drinks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='palaeologos' post='1709375' date='Mar 5 2009, 13.00']And his position is utterly inconsistent if he's not willing to legislate all his religious prohibitions--e.g., the famous Mormon injunction against "hot drinks".[/quote] What if he does that next? All red-blooded Americans who drink coffee, tea, and beer must unite against the Mormon menace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709355' date='Mar 5 2009, 09.49']Not again... Hasn't anyone a better hobby than casting stones at Orson Scott Card? I suppose in a certain sense the accusation is true - he is afraid of what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed. By this definition "homophobia" is not at all a bad thing.[/quote] The thing is, OSC needs to show that civil unions (or gay marriages) would cause the destruction of Western Civilization. He hasn't, and he can't. To many observers, his position looks hysterical; and frankly, if the serial monogamy (and frequent adultery) practiced by straight married people hasn't yet destroyed the institution of marriage, then it's hard for me to see how allowing gays to marry will. Card's religion doesn't have to agree to bless these unions. My religion certainly doesn't, and I would oppose its ever doing so. The proper matter of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. Period. But the civil institution of marriage is not the same thing; the state sets those rules, and the state may define it as it wishes. No good can come of allowing any religious group to dictate civil law based on its sectarian preferences. It's been tried, and time and time again it's been shown to be a disaster. Theologically, I'm about as conservative as they come, but forcing others to believe and practice as I do makes absolutely no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duchess of malfi Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 How can anyone who calls for the violent overthrow of the government if gays should be allowed marriage rights, as Card has done, [b]not[/b] be considered a homophobe? And a hysterical one at that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Precisely, duchess. By definition, Card actually has a better claim to be called a 'homophobe' than most bigots, because his rationale is that he fears homosexuals and finds them a threat. Not on an individual level, perhaps, but on a societal level. And his fear is irrational Even though he may claim it is not, he has failed to make a single substantial argument to justify that fear. So, he has an irrational fear of homosexuals, and is therefore a homophobe even by his own definition. ;) But he's a homophobe by every other definition too. El-ahrairah, your arguments about homosexual marriage are much more 'tired' than Card-bashing will ever be. They're also ridiculous and comprehensively discredited. Get some new material, I say! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='Ormond' post='1709128' date='Mar 5 2009, 07.07']That's one reason why I think a term like "homophobia" makes understanding this more difficult. It gets people to think that OSC's position is just because he's disgusted by "buttsex". That's a distortion of where he's coming from, and if people want to effectively counteract the influence of OSC and the LDS heirarchy on this issue, they have to realize that it's much more complex that just an "icky feeling" about gay sex.[/quote] My main problem with the term "homophobia" is the implied narrative it contains : you don't like gays, therefore you must be afraid of them (or of your own unspoken impulses). To insist on its use in arguments like this is a sneaky way of controlling discourse and stacking the deck. Describing someone as homophobic accuses them of thoughtcrime, as if nobody has the right to have such an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='palaeologos' post='1709575' date='Mar 5 2009, 11.58']To insist on its use in arguments like this is a sneaky way of controlling discourse and stacking the deck.[/quote] We need to influence the discourse in any way we can if we wanna win. If accusing people of having phobias helps "stack the deck" in favor of equal rights I say its a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well, the Pope apparently is Catholic and bears supposedly defecate in woodland areas, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Wolf Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709355' date='Mar 5 2009, 11.49']Not again... Hasn't anyone a better hobby than casting stones at Orson Scott Card? I suppose in a certain sense the accusation is true - he is afraid of what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed. By this definition "homophobia" is not at all a bad thing.[/quote] I am also afraid what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed. I think fundamentalist religions are a very dangerous thing and could cause just that. Is it rigth for me to call for them to no longer be allowed to practice? [quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709355' date='Mar 5 2009, 11.49']And the miscegenation analogy is ridiculous - whatever the law, no one denied a union between a black man & a white woman was "marriage". But the current effort is to actually redefine the word. You see OSC never tried to oppose homosexuals from marrying - or even from marrying each other. He would be perfectly willing for a homosexual man & a homosexual woman to be joined in matrimony. A good if rather dated essay by OSC on the topic is [url="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html"]here[/url].[/quote] The word already has been redefined continuously. It used to be about a property arangement, now it is a contract between two equally recognized people. It usd to allow polygamy, now it does not. Saying "I dont have a problem with gays... as long as they marry the opposite sex," is kind of like me saying, "I don't have a problem with Christians, as long as they worship like Jews." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I dont know if OSC is 'homophobic' or not, but he is definitely against equal rights for gay people. That is reason enough for me to lose some respect for him. There is only a limited cache of it anyways for him having written Ender's Game 20 odd years ago. He can come up with any number of reasons for his views based on LSD teachings, but no thanks. [quote]I suppose in a certain sense the accusation is true - he is afraid of what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed. By this definition "homophobia" is not at all a bad thing.[/quote] I fail to see how 10% or less of the population mating amongst themselves and not even procreating can cause the demise of Western Civilization. Maybe this whole Civilization was built on a flimsier edifice than I gave it credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709719' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.05']The word already has been redefined continuously. It used to be about a property arangement, now it is a contract between two equally recognized people. It usd to allow polygamy, now it does not.[/quote] In a considerable part of the world polygamy is still allowed. I'm not much of a supporter of the practice, but it is undeniably a type of marriage. Likewise the sibling-marriages of the Egyptians, Incas, and Targaryens were (admittedly unconventional) marriages as well. The meaning of the word has always, whatever its evolutions, been a union between male and female. [quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709719' date='Mar 5 2009, 16.05']Saying "I dont have a problem with gays... as long as they marry the opposite sex," is kind of like me saying, "I don't have a problem with Christians, as long as they worship like Jews."[/quote] In a great many ways Christians do worship like Jews, but if you mean so as in renouncing Christ, he who does so would no longer be a Christian. However (if you believe sexual orientation is an inherent characteristic), a homosexual who either marries normally or remains celibate would still be a homosexual. If however you believe it to be a choice, it is as saying "I don't have a problem with kleptomaniacs... as long as they don't steal" - a rather logical idea. [quote name='cyrano' post='1709823' date='Mar 5 2009, 20.28']He can come up with any number of reasons for his views based on [b]LSD[/b] teachings, but no thanks.[/quote] I think you mean LDS... or is that intended as a Mormophobic remark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldygrffn Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote]a homosexual who either marries normally or remains celibate would still be a homosexual.[/quote] yes, but that perticular homosexual would also not be free in his "pursuit of happiness." which goes against one of the main principles that this nation, and IMO any other that has benefited from the thoughts of the Enlightenment, which are many. to push our civilization back to arguments and concepts of two hundred+ years ago seems like more of a threat to Western Civilization than letting a couple of people use a specific word when talking about their lives together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.