Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 April 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Wil, Head Moderator

I found this article today. I thought it would be interesting to show you guys and ask what you think.

[url:kw6rh5l2]http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html[/url:kw6rh5l2] view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 04 April 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by H, Auditor

I remember reading that atricle way back when it was new. His arguement is actually fairly well reasoned but fails on a few points:

Quote: "Card":kcacmpao
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.[/quote:kcacmpao]

Actually, while i don't agree much with Card's final stance, i do agree that one cannot oppose the issue of same-sex marriage without being accused of being a homophobe. For most, there is no ablity to actually discuss the issue at all.

Quote: "Card":kcacmpao
In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.[/quote:kcacmpao]

What a clever misrepresentation of the problem, to discredit any attempt to solve a real issue. The topic is not homosexuals being married, its same-sex marriage.

While i agree with Card on the detrimental effects the colapse of the institution of marriage (i.e. with regard to divorce and so on) has had upon our society, his retort that same-sex marriage will usher in a full colapse is ludicris. The fact is that a child raised in a same-sex household is most probably better off, and more well adjusted, than one raised in a broken home. So, by the same token, shouldn't divorce be illegal?

As i first quoted, it is difficult to oppose the issue without smacking of homophobia. And Mr. Card does well to show he's quite affraid that "state sponsored" homosexuality:

Quote: "Card":kcacmpao
They will make it harder for us to raise children with any confidence that they, in turn, will take their place in the reproductive cycle. They will use all the forces of our society to try to encourage our children that it is desirable to be like them.

Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them. But for those parents who have kids who hover in confusion, their lives complicated by painful experiences, conflicting desires, and many fears, the P.C. elite will now demand that the full machinery of the state be employed to draw them away from the cycle of life. [/quote:kcacmpao]

In other's Mr. Card believes that it will become difficult to raise heterosexual kids, becasue the government is actively trying to draw them into homosexuality. Wow, paraniod much? Is that also saying that by making smoking legal, or drinking legal, or abortion legal, the government is actively trying to give us all lung cancer, cerosis of the liver, and make us into wonton babby murderers?

Well, i'm not quite sure when Mr. Card recieved his degree in Human Sexuality, or in Psychological Development, or in fact, where he's been informed about mate selection in humans, or for that matter in sexuality in general, but the fact is that seeing homosexuals does not make one homosexual. Children of homosexual parents do not invariably become homosexual. In fact, they are less likely to become homosexuals, if i do remember correctly.

I wonder if Mr. Card would say we should torture and kill homosexuals, to 'teach the kids a lesson', that homosexuality is not the way to go. How about instead, you let people do what they want, because, here's a fact, you don't run everyone's life. Neither does the government, so while Mr. Card muses about how the liberal elite is attempting to make us all homosexuals, the fact is he's missing the point that minority groups should not be oppressed by democracy, simply becasue there are less of them.

Mr. Card loves to discuss democracy, but in the end, he's saying 'why can't we opress minorities (like homosexuals) under the gusies of democracy?'

By Mr. Card's logic, the government is trying to make us all into homosexuals. I can see how legal same-sex marriage will turn all of our children into homosexuals, it's all so clear, i can't believe i didn't see it before.

Quote: "Card":kcacmpao
Would-be parents take part in civilization only when they trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce. Societies that create that trust survive; societies that lose it, disappear, one way or another.[/quote:kcacmpao]

Really? Lets go down on the street and find out if that's what is on people's minds when they reproduce. Let's hop on down into the projects of Brooklyn, and ask parents if they "trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce." Mr. Card, honestly, get real. There are vast ammounts of reason why people reproduce, and while you have found an intellectual answer to why you did, that does not extend to the entire world for certain.


For the record i'm for allowing same-sex marriages, under the simple pretense that i have no right to disallow anyone living in an absolutly nonharmful way. I may not want to live that way, but that does not give me the right to say no one should be able to.

And on that note, it's 2 AM, i'm getting some sleep. I preapologize for any spelling errors. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 02 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by SymeonHaecceity, Peralogue

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.


Which is a little like saying "I don't care if Black people marry, so long as they only marry other Black people. Where's the civil rights issue?"

In Iran, people whom the ayatollahs don't approve of are barred from running for office or taking part in public discussion. The ayatollahs have the right to impose their ideas on the whole nation because they're really really really sure that they are correct about everything. All their friends agree with them, and anybody who disagrees with them is obviously evil or stupid.


And of course ayatollah's have very liberal stances on homosexuality.

I'm sorry to say, but the "it's always been this way" has to be one of the weakest arguments against gay marriage I can imagine. Or anything else, for that matter. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 02 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

Being a christian, my opinion on this matter is obviously black and white.

Everyone already knows the judeo-christian stance on gay marriage and so forth, so I won't bother with the doctrine. My personal opinion on the matter however... is that if they want to get married let them get married. The only thing I have a problem with is ministers who agree to marry a gay couple or performing such a marriage in a church. For the simple reason that... without question... the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

Now, before you all start grabbing your pitchforks... that doesn't mean that people who make that choice for their lifestyle aren't human, or that christians hate them. And if anyone is of that opinion, you've obviously seriously misunderstood a fundamental truth about christianity. Either that or... as so commonly happens.... you've allowed yourself to believe that all christians are this way because of the actions of the most vocal among us.

But either way... my answer is the same. I don't see why they shouldn't get married... but getting married in a church or having a minister say "by the power invested in me by God.." just wouldn't be right.

Which... I don't see why that should bother homosexual couples anyway. Why would you want to get married according to the practices of a religious institution that considers what your doing to be a sin? view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 02 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Scilvenas, Auditor

Quote: "Kidruhil Lancer":29ky2mt1
I don't see why they shouldn't get married... but getting married in a church or having a minister say "by the power invested in me by God.." just wouldn't be right.[/quote:29ky2mt1]

I agree with you, and I am not a Christian. However, it's important to note that, just like the word "marriage," "god" and to a lesser extent "church" are not the exclusive domain of christians. More importantly, not every christian (or christian sect that may have a church) believes in the strict interpretation of the bible that proclude's gay marriage (for example, look at how many christians believe in ghosts or having their pets with them in heaven and such). In a society whose government forbids the imposition of any single faith on the whole and grants favorable status for marriage to the whole, the government can't define marriage or allow a single group to define it. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

The conservatists would argue that... this country was founded unquestionably on christian beliefs. Nine-tenths of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. ( And for the record, I'd really like to punch in the face the IDIOT! who was offended by the Ten commandments being put up as a display in front of a courthouse. Some people in this country are just too friggin sensetive! )

But, as I said before, and as you said, it would contradict the ideals of our country to bar gay marriage. On the other hand, I still hold firm on the ideal that christian marriage shouldn't be an option. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by sciborg2, Candidate

Nine-tenths of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments.


Qua? I keep hearing this, but have yet to see it justified. If anything, our initial legal principles are based on the works of Athenians such as Solomon the Wise. The ideas against killing and stealing are found in almost every religion, especially in the insular tribal fashion of the Hebrews. (As in "don't kill another Hebrew, but slaughter the Cannites including their children") We have no laws demanding you honor your parents, or against adultery. Though if Christians did attack adultery as a means of protecting marriage, it would be lot less hypocritical to me. But it would also mean a lot of Republicans couldn't lead the movement.

If Christian minister's can't marry homosexuals, can they marry divorcees or those who had sex pre-marriage? Can they eat seafood? Can women wear pants? Can anyone with bad eyesight approach the altar of God? Though no church should be legally obligated to accept homosexuals, us outsiders find it amusing when Christians pick and choose which laws they like and don't like from the Bible. Especially when they focus on the ones that let them judge others. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

See, you fall into the category of people who've misunderstood.

The random collection of laws you just mentioned, most of them from Paul's letter's to the churches of old europe, are 1) Solutions to problems those specific churches were having, 2) His personal opinions on the matter as a man of God, and 3) outdated.

Now, you may think that this is proving your point about us picking a choosing our laws... But christian's are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments strictly. I can't say anything for divorce, although the Bible does outline when it's okay for a married couple to separate... I believe that divorce is wrong, because if you've screwed up and married the wrong person then that's your problem not the state's. As far as sex before marriage, that is a sin, and I'm sure there are an abundance of ways you can deal with that. But the fact remains that our religion is built on forgiveness, not on harsh punishment.

And as for slaughtering all the Cannanites... Alot of things happened before Grace. And if you don't know what grace is, I recommend Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. All very good books. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Scilvenas, Auditor

Didn't the ten commandments also happen before The Grace? Seems to be more proof of the picking and choosing.

Taken from the answer to the quiz [url=http://www.ffrf.org/quiz:12wi4omz]here[/url:12wi4omz]

Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother. --Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called "the ten commandments." There were three sets of commandments:
1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the "Ten Commandments," although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called "the ten commandments."

2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).

3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." (Exodus 34:1) Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26):

1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God's memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the "Ten Commandments": "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28)


edit- stupid emoticons. they should, of course, be "8 )" view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 03 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

Thought I'd add more, since there were a few things in your post I didn't adress.

Randomly, the Ten Commandments predate any philisophical works by the athenians. And our legal system was based on christian laws for the simple reason that our country was founded by christian men. Not all of them, but alot of them.

And you can't make laws about honoring your parents or adultery... unless you want to infringe on people's rights.

And as far as judging other's is concerned... I can't vouch for what everyone else does. I can only keep an eye on myself. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 06 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Ashmael, Candidate

I think that's only just to recognize gay couples some rights inherent to their union- the possibility to inherit, right to home, right to visit loved ones in hospital (sometimes cruelly denied!) Yes,you need not use the word "marriage", but come to think of it, what happened to O.J. Simpso's perfectly "straight" marriage, or to others?.
I maintain no love should be discriminated against. Jesus love us all, gay and hetero.. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 06 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by sciborg2, Candidate

And our legal system was based on christian laws for the simple reason that our country was founded by christian men.


One would then say intercontinental slavery was founded on Christian principles, or even danishes. The commandments are a set of religous laws, but the idea that simple interdictions against stealing or killing are the foundation of the American system to me seems unlikely.

The Athenians developed the notion of citizens, of voting. The works of Plato and Aristotle were perserved by the Islamic kingdoms and later made their way back to the Church, influencing its thought and rhetoric. The Enlightenment was founded on reason, if anything a break from the Church and a return to the ideas of the Greek philosophers.

Now I can't argue faith with you--perhaps this was all God's plan for America. But from a secular, historical perspective, I'd say that the foundation of American government is more a break from Christianity than anything. But this isn't a secure position, one can make the claim that "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" showed Christ's support of secular authority that allowed for free will to come to know the true Authority. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 06 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Ashmael, Candidate

I was denied love
all my loves have been unilateral
Marco, Cristina, Lele, Lorena, Stefano, Carmen,David
Oh, I have friends, a loving family, but *that* kind of love
Never knew it.
Why should I care?
Of love victimized, blamed, calld unjustly a sin why should I care?
NO! I DO CARE!
I say, Benedict XVI, the Pope named by an eggs breakfast (how ironical) that you have no right, no right whatsoever, to condemn same-sex love! Jesus blesses all love, gay and hetero, all loving is sacred to Him! Pardon him, sweet Jesus.
"Benedict", you hypocryte, how you dare speak of "false"liberty!
Love knows no bounds, it's like the spirit that blows where it wants.
Jesus Blesses all love.
Amen view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 06 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by tellner, Peralogue

So many things, so many things...

First, Kiridhul Lancer, our system of laws is most explicity not based on Christianity. The Constitution was widely condemned by G-d - fearing people (including the President and Rector of Yale) for being atheistic. The Domininists and Reconstructionists - fancy words for, very precisely and exactly, theocratic fascists - have kept rewriting history on that score. Of course Christianity has had a large effect on US history. Most of its citizens have been at least nominally Christian.

But in the end it's been a secular rule based on extremely non-Biblical and un-Christian principles.

Second, anyone with a modicum of religious education knows that "Judeo-Christian" is nothing more or less than spiritual carpetbagging. Judaism and Christianity are very different indeed. The term is used almost exclusively by Christians who try to coopt Judaism. Christo-Muslim or Zoroastrian-Jewish make just as much sense. Don't get me started on Saul of Tarsus.

Now, as to marriage, some people including Mr. Card have odd notions about the institution. The oddest is that its function has been the same throughout time or at least in Christendom in all times. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the most part it's been an economic arrangement designed to pool capital primarily for the raising of children. Romantic love generally didn't enter into it. For a good treatment of marriage and the family check out [url=http&#58;//www&#46;amazon&#46;com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465090974/qid=1118094361/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0056102-3821761:2f4jptri]The Way We Never Were[/url:2f4jptri].

As little as 150 years ago most American men lost it to and got much (most?) of their non-reproductive coochie from prostitutes. Marriage was about children. Sex was separate. Romance was yet another thing. Ben Franklin said "You cannot pluck roses without fear of thorns, Nor enjoy fair wife without danger of horns."

We actually had de facto same sex marriage in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Women pooled their resources, lived together, shared beds, carried out all other life-arrangements as partners. Whatever else happened in these "Boston Marriages" is not fit speculation for ladies and gentlemen <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> This was the age when women were allowed passionate physical "romantic friendships" with female friends. But because none of this could lead to reproduction it wasn't important or considered to be a real sexual relationship. Times and mores change.

One problem as is that we're combining a civil contract and a religious sacrament. If it's a civil contract the Church has no business being involved. After all, we live in America, Land of Rand, where the Sacred Right of Contracts and Commerce trumps all. If it's a religious institution, then we are faced with a choice. Allow the various churches to set their own rules for their members or create an Established Church.

Whichever way you go the obstructionists have caught themselves in a logical cleft stick of their own cutting. And none of it answers the question of how what marriage was relates to what it should be.

Others have talked about how ridiculous Card is being in other areas. Allowing same sex couples to enter into marriage contracts won't prevent a single heterosexual couple from marrying. It won't turn people into queers. If example could do that there wouldn't be any gays or lesbians in our aggressively heterosexual society.

My inlaws were considered a threat to marriage in their day because Jim is Black and married a woman who wasn't. I credit the success of our marriage in large part to the example they provided their "un-natural" "pickaninny" daughter. Five hundred years ago Catholics who slept with Jews were excommunicated. Both of these changed. Neither has destroyed civilization.

Let's also consider the structure of The Family. Prior to the early twentieth century in America "Family" meant the extended family. Grandparents, parents, maybe a sibling or cousin or two, servants if you could afford them as well as the spouse and children. The nuclear family of you, your spouse and your kids was pretty uncommon until fairly recently. Strangely enough, people escaped from the extended family as soon as mobility allowed them to, and there's no real chance of us going back to it. Why should that redefinition of family be sacred while current ones are an insupportable threat to everything good?

I do not claim causation but must note correlation between the success of marriage and the absence of the Church. The most-Churched parts of the US are the ones with the highest divorce rates, the highest rates of pregnancy out of wedlock and the highest household dependence on Federal largesse. Obviously the evil secularists are doing something better than the G-d fearing.

If you really want to promote marriage and the Family make it easier. Undo a small portion of Bush's tax cuts for the extremely wealthy and put it into abolishing the marriage tax. Follow the lead of every other industrialized country and get a real health care system. Make it easier for people to afford to settle and raise children. Stop the flight of family-wage jobs or at least provide affordable child care. Those will strengthen families, not jealously guarding it from anyone else who might want to partake.

Alternatively, turn marriage into a purely religious and purely secular parts. The secular part would be a contract that any two (at least) unencumbered adults could enter into. It would include property law, responsibilities for the provision of children, pensions and inheritance, legal rights such as medical decisions and so on. The religious part would be entirely up to the churches. They could extend or withdraw it purely according to the dictates of their conscience and their Deities. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 07 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by sciborg2, Candidate

excellent post tellner. KL's position is a mature, rational one as well given his faith. I'm sure he will give us at least some example on the Christian influence of government---if nothing else, we do have the notion of being created equal. In fact, on reflection, I think this may be the central Christian influence and thus is a pillar of our government.

More research is required. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 07 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

Well, I have to admit that alot of that went over my head. But then, it is very late where I am.

I admit to an ignorance on matters of history. Until recently, I had no idea that many of the founding father's were members of the Free Masons, who are a satanic cult.

Regardless of whether or not the country's laws were founded on philosophy or what have you... my opinion on the matter of marriage still stands. I also agree with your assessment that perhaps marriage should be separated into religious and secular institutions. Something which would, I think, take alot of the wind out of the debate against gay marriage.

Unfortunately, given the particulars of the christian faith, there will always be a very vocal group that will be against gay marriage. I can't say anything for those people, obviously. But the rest of us, hopefully, will be content to turn a blind eye and let people make their own decisions. As I said in my post on the other topic, none of us has any right to judge anyone except ourselves. A lesson that Jesus taught... and a lesson that, admitedly, more than one christian should take to heart.

As to the influence of christianity on the government... If I tried to make any statements here I'd be speaking without knowledge. (Something I'm really trying to cut back on. ) I can only say that this country still has a very strong moral backbone which is based greatly upon christian ideals. Whether the liberal's like to admit it or not, it's still true. Granted, that backbone is getting smaller by the year... but it still exists.

Now... if we could only get people to understand that having moral's and being narrow-minded aren't the same thing..... view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 07 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by sciborg2, Candidate

KL, what American morals do you believe were inspired by Christianity? That we are "created" equal? Naturally I ask as one sees the violent encroachment of Native American territory and slavery as acts perpetrated by the "Christian" majority of the time. But of course it would be unfair to say that this was inspired by Chrisitianity, as many Christians opposed these human rights violations. The abolitionist movement in particular was definitely Christian in many of its aspects--a point many of my "fellow" liberals seem to forget now that that same inspiration to protect life turns to abortion.

I suppose my question is what morals do you see being eroded away? Personally, I find morality of both liberals and conservatives as being more of a litmus test on issues rather than any adherence to principles--a situation that seems to be getting worse. Abortion may illustrate this best. If innocent life is sacred, why did we willing go to war with Afghanistan right before a winter season which caused many innocents to starve? On the other hand, if sexual intercourse is a right that is above the rights of a fetus, why can't a corporation act within the context of lax international law to make profits? Why is the pleasure of two individuals accepted as a right, but the utility of the shareholders a wrong?

I'm sure there are flaws in these arguments, but I hope it illustrates the point I am trying to make. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 08 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

Your statements just go to show how hypocritical the United States is. I've heard it said before that our country can easily be related to the Roman Empire. A fact which frightens me. The Roman Empire was probably one of the most corrupt nations of its size and influence. I have little doubt that the decay of its moral fabric eventually led to its downfall.

As to specific morals within our country that I see as reflecting christian roots... The biggest one is, like you said, that all men are created equal. An ideal that was not fully realized until well into the latter half of the 20th century when african americans were given equal rights.

Beyond that... I'd have to bone up on my history and knowledge of the law to give a better answer. And I'm sure people like Tellner would argue that any law I might give as an example was equally influenced by philosophy. Which may well be true. Moral's, after all, are universal. Inherant in human's for a number of different reasons. We human's are born with the ability to tell right from wrong, whether or not we admit it or recognize it. Thus, we have laws against stealing, taking another life, there are statutes within marriage laws about cheating... and so on.

I do still stand by my reasoning that the laws of the 10 comandments predate the philosophy of ancient greece. Not that it really matters. No matter which human's said them first.. the laws are still part of our moral backbone. Something which we get from our creator, whoever you might hold that to be. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 08 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Deerow, Auditor

To be honest I haven't read a lot of what was written...but I'll give my two cents anyways...

I say let same-sex couples get married. How does it impact your life in any way? It could mean a world of difference to that couple. I agree that a church or other place of worship should not be forced to wed homosexual couples because it goes against the beliefs of that institution.

I can't tolerate people who either push their prejudices or religious beliefs onto others. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 14 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by azdahak, Candidate

I think that Marriage should be a State matter, not a Church matter. Getting married is about getting a legal status bedfore the State. Denying such a fundamental right to homosexual IS unconstitutional. If people want a church blessing afterwards, it's up to the church if it wants to extend it's blessings to ANY union. I got sick of OSC a long time ago after he stopped writing SF/Fantasy and started using his books for proselytizing instead. <!-- s:evil: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_evil.gif" alt=":evil:" title="Evil or Very Mad" /><!-- s:evil: -->
HOT view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 14 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by sciborg2, Candidate

Card, near as I can tell, hasn't written jack worth reading in years. That, and a slew of Enders novels loooong after the story should have ended have made me wonder why he thinks anyone should listen to him. During the release of attack of the clones, he babbled about how unrealistic a clone army would be.For someone to complain about a space-fantasy lacking scientific validity, one would hope he would have some kind of evidence in his article beyond moaning about the end of civilization. Ultimately, all the evidence is against him:

1. No study has shown that being raised by homosexual parents makes you a homosexual, that is causes sexual dysfunction, etc.
2. There are gay animals in nature, as well as animals in transgendered roles. There is a lot of evidence for this. So God can't have too much of a problem with it, if such a being exists and is consistent with Christian theology.

One cannot deny rights based on one's desire to protect nebulous concepts like marriage, which the state has no business dealing in. There should be NO marriage benefits for anyone, or at least not until a grace period of five years or so has passed AND the parents take care of children. In fact, marriage is largely useless to the state unless there are children involved. The only thing I can think it does is slow the spread of STDs, and even that claim is laughable.

Ultimately, the problem lies with challenge of Christian living. I try to be a good person, but I can't imagine trying to always love my neighbor, be charitable to everyone, and turn the other cheek. Apparently, neither can most "Christians", which is why they seek out scapegoat sinners. If America really were a Christian nation, we wouldn't have the problems with poverty---1 million homeless children--that we do. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 14 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Kidruhil Lancer, Auditor

Ah, but dear Sciborg...You're forgetting the fact that we're imperfect. And any christian who uses sinners as a scapegoat has seriously deluded themselves if they think they're a real christian. After all, even christian's are sinners.

I'm curious about your statement having to do with gay animals. The transgender one about animal's is valid because there are species that can switch their genders... (frogs, I think..).. but saying that gay animal's exhist in the wild is... a stretch. For one thing, instinct is a powerful thing in the animal kingdom. And for another thing... ( and I'm sure this will have people wanting to lynch me )... I think there is a neccessary level of intelligence needed for such a thing. Animal's are just animal's. They only know instinct and their instincts wouldn't tell them to try breeding with another creature of the same gender.

Of course, if you have scientific evidence of homosexual animals in the wild... I'll be happy to refute my claim. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 14 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Tol h'Eddes, Auditor

I heard a wild theory, years ago, about homosexuality being part of natural selection...

First thing first, there are, in the world, many kinds of frogs that will change sex depending on some factors : too many members of one sex in a population, weather, etc. There are, apparently, chemical triggers in their genes that are activated by these factors, triggering the sex change.

So, for example, whenever there are too many males in a community, some males frogs will change sex to female and they will be able to breed with partners of their former sex.

Now, for the wild theory : what if homosexuality was Nature way of controlling human population?
What if, having reached too many members in a community, some people found themselves being attracted by same-sex members, thus making it hard for them to procreate?

For my part, I think it is an interesting theory, but not a serious one. Nothing stop homosexual couple from having children.
If it truly was a way of controlling human population, Nature would have make people barren, not homosexual.

Anyway, just wanted to share this theory to you. Your comments are welcome, as always <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

Quote: &quot;Kidruhil Lancer&quot;:1otdsvlt
Of course, if you have scientific evidence of homosexual animals in the wild... I'll be happy to refute my claim.[/quote:1otdsvlt]

I recommend reading this article :

[url=http&#58;//www&#46;abc&#46;net&#46;au/science/features/queercreatures/:1otdsvlt]Queer creatures[/url:1otdsvlt] view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 17 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Ashmael, Candidate

Well, I think of myself a bisexual androgyne, not simply "homosexual", but I'll report an interesting theory. Homosexuality may be a byproduct of sexual behaviour evolution that favoured a more solicitous, civil and gentle behavior in heterosexual men. Women of the Cromagnon Era selected men more wont to bring them flowers, protect them, care for children, rather than to club them and rape them on the spot. This selection prompted the emergence of a genetic map that, in some, statistically irrelevant cases, prompted men that loved men. Being that percentage only 3% or so, it didn't outweigh the advantage to have heterosexual men more dedicated to protecting their offspring. So homosexuality survived...because women preferred, obviously, Robert Redford to Terminator.
IIt may be, don't you think? view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 17 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by H, Auditor

No offence meant to anyone of any sexual orientation, but i still regard sexual attraction as being a predominantly psychological process.

Of cource, does biology influence psychology? Yes. But does psychology influence biology? Yes.

In the end, sexual attraction can take numerous forms, not all neccessarily biologically driven. What is the genetic advantage for people with foot fetishes, or who enjoy latex, or bondange? Is thre a bilogical determanism that will have me be more attracted to brunettes over blondes? This seem unlikely to me, as i have seen my own preferences change over time. Sure, i have not changed my gender preferences, but then again, i have been indoctrinated to prefer women, early on in life. As Freud speculated, sexuality is polymorpheous perverse, in that it can accept numerous 'outlets' and symbols for its expression. You can see my psychoanalytic orientation coming through here....

Now, this can easily be twisted to see homosexuality as being a pschological problem. I do not agree with this. There is no problem if the person has no trouble with it. But i do believe that there is a strong psychological component which goes into developing sexually. This is not to downplay the complex interplay between biology and psychology. However, I really don't believe in biological determanism with regards to mate selection. There is too much of the mind in play in such selection, be it hetero or homosexual, for me to believe that biology determines whom i will be attracted to.

Now, i'm not trying to say that all homosexuality can be traced to experiances in childhood, or in psychological processes, but i belive that the strongest component in mate selection is still fundamentally psychological. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 17 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by Ashmael, Candidate

Certainly psychology plays an important part in sexual orientation, but not in the Simplistic Freudian way:
"you've had a traumatic childhood experience of sexual nature, obviously"
"But Doctor, I've had nothing of the sort!"
"See? You've removed it!"

Circular reasoning aside, I think the predisposition to a certain sexual orientation is innate, due also to hormonal stimuli happening in the womb.
I certainly don't think there's such thing as a "gay gene". But I think there can be a genetic configuration of different genes that enhance the possibility of a certain orientation, a configuration evolved by sexual selection. Then Psychology would play a most important part along with experience and environment in realizing or neutralizing that predisposition. view post


Orson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage posted 17 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionOrson Scott Card and Homosexual Marriage by azdahak, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Kidruhil Lancer&quot;:lhx3856f

I'm curious about your statement having to do with gay animals. The transgender one about animal's is valid because there are species that can switch their genders... (frogs, I think..).. but saying that gay animal's exhist in the wild is... a stretch. For one thing, instinct is a powerful thing in the animal kingdom. And for another thing... ( and I'm sure this will have people wanting to lynch me )... I think there is a neccessary level of intelligence needed for such a thing. Animal's are just animal's. They only know instinct and their instincts wouldn't tell them to try breeding with another creature of the same gender..[/quote:lhx3856f]
Homosexuality in animals is actually quite common as [url=http&#58;//news&#46;nationalgeographic&#46;com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal&#46;html:lhx3856f]this[/url:lhx3856f] National Geographic article shows. When homosexuality is so prevalent in nature, I would deem it "natural" and certainly not a "crime against nature"
Haakon view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown