Is Orson Scott Card homophobic?

[Stalker]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709397' date='Mar 5 2009, 18.13']What if he does that next? All red-blooded Americans who drink coffee, tea, and beer must unite against the Mormon menace![/quote]

Wha.. Hot Beer?

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709824' date='Mar 5 2009, 20.28']I think you mean LDS... or is that intended as a Mormophobic remark?[/quote]

Yes, yes ... LDS. On a side note, I want to start a religion that doesnt actually make you feel guilty about enjoying certain things (tea, coffee, LSD, butts3x, masturbation, meat on Fridays, pork etc...)

[ldygrffn]

^^hey, if i was into believing what someone else tells me to believe, rather than what i see and know to be right for myself, i'd be in you religion.

[tzanth]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709824' date='Mar 5 2009, 17.28']The meaning of the word has always, whatever its evolutions, been a union between male and female.[/quote]
Completely untrue! Marriages between women are traditionally alowed amung the Neur if one of the women had a deceased husband.* I could come up with other examples but thats the only one from the top of my head. Also, your statment is assuming only two genders, which is not the case cross-culturally.

*although these are admittadly expected to be celibate marriages, the point that the concept of "marriage" has a high degree of variablity still holds.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='ldygrffn' post='1709849' date='Mar 5 2009, 20.38']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.[/quote]
Neither still would be the arsonists or vandals or necrophiliacs be able to pursue their happiness. Individual rights are not absolute.

[ldygrffn]

[quote]Individual rights are not absolute.[/quote]

if they are not harmful to the property, health, or well-being of another, why shouldn't they be?

[The White Wolf]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709824' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.28']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]

Hasn't the meaning changed though? Isn't it not a property issue anymore, at least in America? Just because we have always done something in a certain way, does not mean we should continue to do it that way. It is in essence an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy.

As for the meaning of the word always been a union between a male and female, we see that is not true today. My synagogue marries same sex couples, Unitarian churches marry same sex couples, many United Church of Christ churches, Quaker churches, Methodist churches, etc, etc. marry same sex couples. They are using the word "marry" so your argument that its has [i]always[/i] meant a union between a man and a woman is demonstratively false.

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709824' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.28']In a great many ways Christians do worship like Jews,[/quote]

Really? You have a whole set of books which are not accepted by us. In my experience you pretty much read from them every Sunday. In English no less, I've never heard the Bible read in Hebrew in a church. Not to mention that the Christian Scriptures weren't even originally written in Hebrew so shouldn't be considered part of scripture according to the Jewish understanding. And while we're at it, what's up with the Sabbath being on Sunday? Move it to sundown on Friday where it belongs. And do you keep Kosher? Make sure your clothes are of a single fabric? I could go on. (Note: the previous was said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Please don't be insulted, but I hope you understand my point)

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709824' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.28']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.[/quote]

Well, all I'm asking is for you to do it publicly. What you do privately is your own business. If you publicly renounce Christ, but don't really mean it, aren't you still a Christian? Let me ask another question, if I publicly accept Christ, get baptized, receive communion, go to church weekly, take part in Bible study groups, etc, etc, but don't really mean it aren't I still not a Christian? Isn't being a Christian or not what exists in your heart and mind not in outward actions?

[Stalker]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1709128' date='Mar 5 2009, 15.07']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".[/quote]

I agree with most of this. But I don't feel there is a point in avoiding the word, or that it causes confusion, more than, say, the word "Racism" does. People understand what is meant, and what I see is mostly intentional 'misunderstandings'. It is my experience that in those cases, avoiding the excuse just leads to another one.

[quote name='Ormond' post='1709128' date='Mar 5 2009, 15.07']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.[/quote]
I just read that article that was linked to, and it seems you are right. He sees any step away from his vision of how everyone should live as aberrant. That this one is caused by homosexuality is not his motivation. He would think the same about any step towards greater personal freedom in how to live, regardless of cause. In a way, that puts him closer to what you described as the older usage of "bigot", rather than the more modern one many here assign to him. Except, for me, "Bigot" also have an undertone of 'ignorant', and that is not the impression I get here.

[Stalker]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709355' date='Mar 5 2009, 17.49']he is afraid of what would happen if Western Civilization is destroyed.[/quote]

I didn't read it like that. It would make no sesnse to me if that is what he meant, as it would entail him claiming that the vast majority of the population of Europe and the USA actually lived somewhere else.

To me his use of 'Civilized' refred to the political right, which he contrasted with the 'Barbarians', the politcal centre and the left.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Neither still would be the arsonists or vandals or necrophiliacs be able to pursue their happiness. Individual rights are not absolute.[/quote]So how does the buttsecks really hurt people?

Well, I mean with lube, otherwise the answer is obvious.

Because to me, you're comparing necrophilia, arson and vandalism with two people having sex. And earlier, you were comparing it to pedophilia and beastiality. And honestly, unless you're also willing to compare oral sex, any kind of sex without procreation, people who divorce, children out of wedlock, and any number of other sinful activities that same way - I think you're being highly offensive.

Individual rights are not sacrosanct. Individual rights that cause no harm to others or to oneself should be.

[Serious Callers Only]

Christian idiocy.

[Kalbear]

Nah. It's just idiocy. Idiocy, it turns out, is entirely non-denominational.

[StarkMyrmidon]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1709128' date='Mar 5 2009, 10.07']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.[/quote]
How exciting that I'm parentally eligible for the highest level of heaven if the LDS are correct. I suppose that the pain inflicted upon my (now-ex) wife by me, as I pretended to be straight (in an attempt to be a good Southern Baptist) and tried for years (never succeeding) to [b]desire [/b]her as well as love her is just acceptable collateral damage. Please, haters, don't bother replying with "Are you saying you regret the conception of your son?" or the like. What I regret is living a lie for many years, and causing people I love great pain. In a free society I ought to still have plenty of procreative options as a gay man, should I choose to exercise them. Options that don't involve deceiving a woman (and attempting to deceive myself) would be better for everyone involved.

On the whole, I'm extremely heartened to read so many posts here in support of full and equal rights for LGBT folks. I just want to know where all you guys and gals making these eloquent libertarian arguments were when 98% of those posting in the Ayn Rand thread a while back decided that libertarian ideals made one a misguided but harmless wingnut at best, and an arrogant elitist who (despite a full bladder) wouldn't stop to piss on a flaming nun at worst. I'm sure most of you either aren't American or identify as "liberal," but please recall that it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, not either of the Bushes.

ETA: Ironically, I really enjoyed all of Card's Ender Universe novels, even the most recent ([i]Ender in Exile[/i]). I don't have any particular animosity toward OSC. The politicians who still uphold crap like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," on the other hand? [i]Those [/i]people I have a problem with.

[The White Wolf]

[quote name='StarkMyrmidon' post='1709953' date='Mar 5 2009, 20.59']On the whole, I'm extremely heartened to read so many posts here in support of full and equal rights for LGBT folks. I just want to know where all you guys and gals making these eloquent libertarian arguments were when 98% of those posting in the Ayn Rand thread a while back decided that libertarian ideals made one a misguided but harmless wingnut at best, and an arrogant elitist who (despite a full bladder) wouldn't stop to piss on a flaming nun at worst.[/quote]

StarkMyrmidon,

It's not so much that I feel that libertarian ideals make one an arrogant elitist, I feel that that libertarian ideas in practice lead to those who cannot be take care of themselves being taken advantage of. For instance, look at the history of those with developmental disabilities. For the vast majority of our history, most of it far more libertarian than today, they were ignored and shut away in mental institutions, often under terrible conditions. In spite of the well meaning attempts by a few, this remained pretty much the case until the 1970s when government regulation and government funds dramatically increased the quality of life for these people and we now see their life expectancies also increase an impressive amount.

Is the 150+ years of terrible conditions and treatment a result of people enjoying seeing the developmentally disabled suffer? No, its because the developmentally disable were someone else's problem not worthy of the time or funds of (the vast majority of) individuals. It's only after the government FORCED people to fork over these commodities did this change. Libertarians say time and time again that private charities will take care of this or that problem. But history has shown, time and time again, that private charities and individuals are not up to the task.

[quote name='StarkMyrmidon' post='1709953' date='Mar 5 2009, 20.59']I'm sure most of you either aren't American or identify as "liberal," but please recall that it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, not either of the Bushes.[/quote]

I deffinitely do not forget that and I hold it against him, along with his "don't ask don't tell" policy. I wish more politicians would be like Dennis Kucinich and I am disapointed in BO's stance on gay marriage as well. However, I feel that it is an incremental improvement over what we have now and should be reached for though not as a final goal.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1709910' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.25']And earlier, you were comparing it to pedophilia and beastiality.[/quote]
Actually I haven't made that accurate, if exaggerated and overused, comparison thus far. But now I shall.

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709900' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.14']Hasn't the meaning changed though? Isn't it not a property issue anymore, at least in America? Just because we have always done something in a certain way, does not mean we should continue to do it that way. It is in essence an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy.

As for the meaning of the word always been a union between a male and female, we see that is not true today. My synagogue marries same sex couples, Unitarian churches marry same sex couples, many United Church of Christ churches, Quaker churches, Methodist churches, etc, etc. marry same sex couples. They are using the word "marry" so your argument that its has [i]always[/i] meant a union between a man and a woman is demonstratively false.[/quote]
Obviously the mere fact we are having this argument means "always" is not literally true, but it is enough in the overwhelming majority to be practically as such. Some of your examples are so, the UCC sadly being mine own denomination, but as for Methodists (at least in the U.S.) - [i] "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." [/i]

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709900' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.14']Really? You have a whole set of books which are not accepted by us. In my experience you pretty much read from them every Sunday. In English no less, I've never heard the Bible read in Hebrew in a church. Not to mention that the Christian Scriptures weren't even originally written in Hebrew so shouldn't be considered part of scripture according to the Jewish understanding. And while we're at it, what's up with the Sabbath being on Sunday? Move it to sundown on Friday where it belongs. And do you keep Kosher? Make sure your clothes are of a single fabric? I could go on. (Note: the previous was said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Please don't be insulted, but I hope you understand my point)[/quote]
As far in that we consider the Hebrew Torah divinely inspired and our divine Founder to be a Jew, and we surely worship the same God. In many ways we hold ourselves to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism, which has of course changed a bit in the past 2,000 years since our separation. We do not consider ourselves bound by much of the Pentateuch, but in all we are far closer than any two religions in the world.

I'm far from insulted by your single-fabric comment, as we believe it to not apply unto us. But now not to insult [i]you[/i], but how does your synagogue, which still professes the ritual commandments, accept the homosexual practice?

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709900' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.14']Well, all I'm asking is for you to do it publicly. What you do privately is your own business. If you publicly renounce Christ, but don't really mean it, aren't you still a Christian? Let me ask another question, if I publicly accept Christ, get baptized, receive communion, go to church weekly, take part in Bible study groups, etc, etc, but don't really mean it aren't I still not a Christian? Isn't being a Christian or not what exists in your heart and mind not in outward actions?[/quote]
In the first case, yes, albeit a very imperfect one. In the second, no. But this analogy is straying.

[The White Wolf]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709992' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.55']Actually I haven't made that accurate, if exaggerated and overused, comparison thus far. But now I shall.


Obviously the mere fact we are having this argument means "always" is not literally true, but it is enough in the overwhelming majority to be practically as such. Some of your examples are so, the UCC sadly being mine own denomination, but as for Methodists (at least in the U.S.) - [i] "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." [/i][/quote]

1) Please define overwhelming majority.

2) Their are individual Methodist churches which marry homosexuals whether the central church recognizes it or not.

3) Since we have established that the definition is not always, why should the one group have the right to define it for the other?

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709992' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.55']As far in that we consider the Hebrew Torah divinely inspired and our divine Founder to be a Jew, and we surely worship the same God. In many ways we hold ourselves to be the "fulfillment" of Judaism, which has of course changed a bit in the past 2,000 years since our separation. We do not consider ourselves bound by much of the Pentateuch, but in all we are far closer than any two religions in the world.[/quote]

I disagree much with that. I feel Judaism has much more in common with Islam than Christianity. We both have a FUNDAMENTAL monotheism where Christianity has the Trinity. We are both action based religions where Christianity is a faith based religion.

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709992' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.55']I'm far from insulted by your single-fabric comment, as we believe it to not apply unto us. But now not to insult [i]you[/i], but how does your synagogue, which still professes the ritual commandments, accept the homosexual practice?[/quote]

That's easy, I'm Reform :D .

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1709992' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.55']In the first case, yes, albeit a very imperfect one. In the second, no. But this analogy is straying.[/quote]

On the contrary, I feel this analogy is very close. You are asking someone to deny who they are, to act in a way that flies in the face of everything they hold dear and you refuse to acknowledge their most sacred relationships. My example was almost exactly the same.

[The Man]

[quote name='StarkMyrmidon' post='1709953' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.59']On the whole, I'm extremely heartened to read so many posts here in support of full and equal rights for LGBT folks. I just want to know where all you guys and gals making these eloquent libertarian arguments were when 98% of those posting in the Ayn Rand thread a while back decided that libertarian ideals made one a misguided but harmless wingnut at best, and an arrogant elitist who (despite a full bladder) wouldn't stop to piss on a flaming nun at worst. I'm sure most of you either aren't American or identify as "liberal," but please recall that it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, not either of the Bushes.[/quote]
Clinton is only liberal by U.S. standards. By the standards of any other country in the world, he'd be a moderate conservative.

I, myself, identify as anarchist. And Ayn Rand was a whack job.

[StarkMyrmidon]

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709968' date='Mar 5 2009, 22.26']StarkMyrmidon,

It's not so much that I feel that libertarian ideals make one an arrogant elitist, I feel that that libertarian ideas in practice lead to those who cannot be take care of themselves being taken advantage of. For instance, look at the history of those with developmental disabilities. For the vast majority of our history, most of it far more libertarian than today, they were ignored and shut away in mental institutions, often under terrible conditions. In spite of the well meaning attempts by a few, this remained pretty much the case until the 1970s when government regulation and government funds dramatically increased the quality of life for these people and we now see their life expectancies also increase an impressive amount.

Is the 150+ years of terrible conditions and treatment a result of people enjoying seeing the developmentally disabled suffer? No, its because the developmentally disable were someone else's problem not worthy of the time or funds of (the vast majority of) individuals. It's only after the government FORCED people to fork over these commodities did this change. Libertarians say time and time again that private charities will take care of this or that problem. But history has shown, time and time again, that private charities and individuals are not up to the task.[/quote]
Hi White Wolf,
I don't disagree at all with what you've written here about the developmentally disabled. I do have three points to make in reubttal:
(1) Any ideology considered only from the point of its most extremist adherents ends up sounding absurd to everyone else. It's no more accurate to say "Libertarian in practice = screw the developmentally disabled" than it is to say "Republican in practice = Nazi" or "Democrat in practice = Communist." Read the well-reasoned and lively debates on altruism in periodicals such as [i]Reason [/i]or [i]Liberty[/i], and you'll see that most libertarians are far from being unfeeling, compassion-free elitists.
(2) It was Ronald Reagan who reversed so much of the progress you noted above, particularly with regard to the mentally ill. It's Reagan's legacy that the country's largest mental health facility (or at least the facility now housing the greatest population of the mentally ill) is now the L.A. County Jail. Progressive treatment has given way to incarceration as the new "answer." This is statism (the opposite of libertarianism) at work. Don't hear much public outcry (or even awareness) of this, though, do we?
(3) Your statement "For the vast majority of our history, most of it far more libertarian than today, they were ignored and shut away in mental institutions, often under terrible conditions." is one of those things that may correlate (though it's quite arguable as to how libertarian the U.S. has been throughout its history) but certainly has no causal relationship. And even the correlation would be extremely poor -- significant progress in caring for the developmentally disabled didn't happen till the 1960s at the earliest, right? Are you saying that America up until the 1960's was significantly more libertarian than it is now? Yikes. Might as well blame the mistreatment of the developmentally disabled on the prevalence of travel by horse rather than automobile -- at least that would correlate a bit better.

I would attribute the horrific treatment of the developmentally disabled to ignorance and superstition, and the improvements to education and scientific progress ... until the "government FORCED people to fork over" even more money per patient to care for each "patient" as an "inmate" instead. Yeah, the government's done a great job these past twenty years -- forcing those who used to work in state hospitals to find new work, forcing the mentally ill out onto the street and (soon thereafter, naturally) into the jails and prisons, and forcing the taxpayers to pay more for the cost of care per patient/inmate as a result. Until at least one of our three branches of government is led by libertarians, I have a hard time accepting the arguments of those who ascribe blame for America's shortcomings (be they societal or governmental) to the libertarians, rather than to either of the two parties who have been in power for ... how long now?

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1709968' date='Mar 5 2009, 22.26']I deffinitely do not forget that and I hold it against him, along with his "don't ask don't tell" policy. I wish more politicians would be like Dennis Kucinich and I am disapointed in BO's stance on gay marriage as well. However, I feel that it is an incremental improvement over what we have now and should be reached for though not as a final goal.[/quote]
Kucinich would have been infinitely preferable to McCain or Obama. With regard to your last statement above, would you have been satisfied with similar "incremental improvement" in care for the developmentally disabled back in the 1950s, or would you have demanded more of your elected officials?


[quote name='The Man']Clinton is only liberal by U.S. standards. By the standards of any other country in the world, he'd be a moderate conservative.

I, myself, identify as anarchist. And Ayn Rand was a whack job.[/quote]
Agreed with your first point. As to your second point, please refer to my response (1) to The White Wolf. Citing the name "Ayn Rand" as a way to discredit all libertarians is as logical as citing the name "Joseph McCarthy" to discredit all Republicans, or "Rod Blagojevich" to discredit all Democrats. And BTW, I bet I had a lot more choices for my one-name-party-anti-exemplars than you did with Ayn Rand.

[The Man]

Yeah I'm not equating all libertarians to Rand's views; that would be absurd, especially since Rand didn't even consider herself a libertarian. That said, I have to take issue with the view that allowing everyone to pursue unmitigated economic self-interest will lead to a desirable result for the many rather than just the few; there are too many conflicting interests at work for such a thing to be likely, but Rand was one of the foremost proponents of deregulating capitalism and eliminating all economic assistance to the poor. Apart from Milton Friedman I can't think of anyone else from the 20th century whose economic views I find more ethically repugnant.

[El-ahrairah]

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']1) Please define overwhelming majority.[/quote]
Um... 48 out of 50 states? 2950 out of 3000 years?

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']2) Their are individual Methodist churches which marry homosexuals whether the central church recognizes it or not.[/quote]
True, just as there are individual senators who take bribes whether the central government approves or not.

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']3) Since we have established that the definition is not always, why should the one group have the right to define it for the other?[/quote]
Certainly the people have more of a right to do so than a handful of judges. Anyhow it's not a right but a duty to preserve the sacrosanctity of marriage. Granted this claim has been much eroded by rampant divorces and sundry, but the existence of current problems is not a license to create more.

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']I disagree much with that. I feel Judaism has much more in common with Islam than Christianity. We both have a FUNDAMENTAL monotheism where Christianity has the Trinity. We are both action based religions where Christianity is a faith based religion.[/quote]
Islam too has similarities. But though the Koran has the same mythic structure as the Bible, the texts are utterly separate; the scripture shared by Christians & Jews is, barring translation, identical.

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']That's easy, I'm Reform :D .[/quote]
Well then, I'm (Christian) Conservative.

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1710013' date='Mar 5 2009, 23.07']On the contrary, I feel this analogy is very close. You are asking someone to deny who they are, to act in a way that flies in the face of everything they hold dear and you refuse to acknowledge their most sacred relationships. My example was almost exactly the same.[/quote]
Again this depends on your view of sexual orientation. If innate, it cannot be discarded as a religion can (though it can and ought to be subdued), and if no, it is a choice that, in the eyes of a very great many, is immoral. Everyone is the hero of his own story; the fact that you hold something dear does not make it right.