NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just been having a look at Orson Scott Card's essay (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html) on gay marriage. Card is the popular writer of "Enders Game" and many other science fiction books. While I certainly don't agree with him, he's the first person I've seen to come against gay marraige and raise any valid points at all.

Now, Card's argument is not that gay people are evil or undeserving of marriage, but instead that changing the rules of society, especially the rules about something as important as marriage, can do nothing but harm society. It seems to me that he makes a much better case against frivolous divorces than gay marriage.

Another point he makes, and I'll start another thread about this one if people don't discuss it much here, is that this descision was handed down, not democratically, but by the courts. We on the left support it because we agree with the ruling, and many of us ignore the implications that this causes. Truly, as Card himself said, would we feel the same way if the courts were making descisions that we didn't support? I doubt it.

Sweet mother of God, cyrian! Couldn't you have provided that in a link or something?

Yeah, okay, I saw how mammoth that was and got rid of it.

While I certainly don't agree with him, he's the first person I've seen to come against gay marraige and raise any valid points at all.


That statement simply proves you have never listened to the opposing viewpoint at all. That essay does not say anything new. It presents nothing that is not already an integral part of the viewpoint of those opposed to gay marriage. You couldve watched the O'Riley factor two years ago and heard those same arguments.

After reading Ender's game, I briefly wondered if Orson Scott Card was gay... there're a lot of penises in the book. I didn't really care, I just wondered. I guess he isn't. Not openly anyway.

I skimmed through it; it's basically a glued together nonargument. He seems to have little grasp of judicial law or of rights at all for that matter. Then again, I expect nothing less from Scott Card. Mormonism is notorious for being staunchly anti-gay after all. Card himself reaks of it here.

That statement simply proves you have never listened to the opposing viewpoint at all. That essay does not say anything new. It presents nothing that is not already an integral part of the viewpoint of those opposed to gay marriage. You couldve watched the O'Riley factor two years ago and heard those same arguments.

Took the words out of my mouth.

The only new thing I see (read new-to-me) was the whole democracy thing. However as a counterpoint to that, the courts are doing the same thing that Bush wants to do with the Amendment. There's no choice in the matter either way.

Other than that, he's using the same sanctity-of-marriage and families-are-mom-dad-2-kids arguments that hundreds of others have used before.

a little farfetched, but I like it overall

the American people had plunged into a terrible experiment on ourselves, guided only by the slogan of immaturity and barbarism: "If it feels good, do it!"

My favorite quote.

Thanks for posting it. I havent read it in detail yet but i will. From what i've read it makes a lot of sense and i agree with it. :)

Well written, but it focuses on the ideas that A) The ninth Amendment doesn't extst and B) Humans are nothing but mindless baby-making machines and shouldn't try to be anything more.

The only new thing I see (read new-to-me) was the whole democracy thing. However as a counterpoint to that, the courts are doing the same thing that Bush wants to do with the Amendment. There's no choice in the matter either way.


That not new at all, its been a fundamental argument for many years. Its a major part of what has spawned the meaningless phrase "activist judges". In fact, Bush presented that very argument during the debates against Kerry. He used it as his reasoning for promoting a constitutional amendment.

That not new at all, its been a fundamental argument for many years. Its a major part of what has spawned the meaningless phrase "activist judges". In fact, Bush presented that very argument during the debates against Kerry. He used it as his reasoning for promoting a constitutional amendment.

I didn't realize that, but I figured it had been used before.

I tend to focus on the "Gays are icky!" arguments and people who use them.

I didn't realize that, but I figured it had been used before.

I tend to focus on the "Gays are icky!" arguments and people who use them.

Those people are mindless and meaningless. If you want to understand the opposing view you need to listen to people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley. Listening to the mindless masses of the right is like listening to the stoner hippies as if they represented the left.

poor guy. that mormonism is no good for the brain.

"...the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation..."

and what would that be, mr. mormon?

poor guy. that mormonism is no good for the brain.

"...the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation..."

and what would that be, mr. mormon?
I find it funny, how liberals, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to name calling.

I find it funny, how liberals, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to name calling.

Hey, if the glove fits...

Hey, if the glove fits...

you must acquit?

you must acquit?

I was so hoping someone would say that!

That statement simply proves you have never listened to the opposing viewpoint at all. That essay does not say anything new. It presents nothing that is not already an integral part of the viewpoint of those opposed to gay marriage. You couldve watched the O'Riley factor two years ago and heard those same arguments.
Yes, i've heard the arguments, again and again, and again. But I've never had them explained well. People have always just said "Of course a child needs two parents of different sexes!" without showing any reasoning behind it.

Card wrote another few essays, one about homosexuality and mormonism, and another about a character in one of his books who is gay. This essay can be found here (http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html)

I find it funny, how liberals, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to name calling.

1) not a liberal
2) no seriously, how exactly can mormons talk about some fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, up until the present generation? i'm fairly sure the church had to change its doctrine on marriage in order to get utah in as a state.

On the essay I just posted, I find it interesting that he ends it off with this.

I suppose I can take some comfort from the fact that over the years I have been savaged both for showing too much sympathy for the "abomination" of homosexuality and for showing too much "homophobic" opposition to the political agenda of the radical homosexual community. If either group of intolerant extremists felt comfortable with my works and my words, I would have reason to reexamine my position. As things stand right now, however, I think I am annoying exactly the right people on both sides, and so will continue as I have in the past, to attempt to discover the truth of every aspect of human life and then to tell what truth I believe I have found, as best I can, in both my fiction and my nonfiction.

my argument against gay marriage is this. not having to be involved in the archaic institution is one of the great charms of being gay. why would any reasonable homosexual want to turn themselves into a pale imitatation of the seething unwashed breeder masses.

2) no seriously, how exactly can mormons ...
Whoa, hold the phone. Since when have you ever been serious about mormons? Last time I checked they were too beneath you.

Yes, i've heard the arguments, again and again, and again. But I've never had them explained well. People have always just said "Of course a child needs two parents of different sexes!" without showing any reasoning behind it.


If you had heard those same arguments before, then why did you say in your original post that it is the first time you hear anyone make any valid points at all? You either lied then or you lied now. Either you had heard others make the same points before (again, and again, and again) or you had not.

These arguments are nothing new, they are what the right has been saying since the issue first surfaced several years ago. They even coined the term "activist judges" to reffer to judges who want to legislate from the bench. Was that not clear enough for you when they coined that phrase? What about during the debates when Bush gave this very same argument? was that not clear enough then? It sounds to me like its simply the very first time you've ever listened to the other side.

We on the left support it because we agree with the ruling, and many of us ignore the implications that this causes. Truly, as Card himself said, would we feel the same way if the courts were making descisions that we didn't support? I doubt it.

I know for a fact that a LOT of people were upset over Brown v BoE. A lot of people also thought it was the right decision. In the end popular opinion didn't matter though, as it was the supreme court's power to make the decision.

The judicial branch will never be a democratic representation of the people. It was never designed to be. But if that's the real point behind Card's essay, why did he spend so much time talking about gay marriage? It would have sufficed to reference it as one more reminder that we don't live in a total democracy, which wasn't a surprise to me in the first place.

I'm a bit partial in this matter though. Card spoke at my high school graduation and made us all sit in the baking sun for 3 hours while he read a cute little diatribe he'd cooked up for us. So I don't really like the guy, nor do I appreciate his quaint conclusions regarding the 'wellbeing of our civilization'.

That essay doesn't really bring anything I haven't heard to the table, but it does bring everything that has been on the table into one concise argument. He makes quite a convincing argument if you dont' read every other word, as I gather some people did by what their replies are.

He also gave me a great quote for my signature! :)

Whoa, hold the phone. Since when have you ever been serious about mormons? Last time I checked they were too beneath you.
i think that was a rhetorical seriously, we are talking about LDSers after all.

If you had heard those same arguments before, then why did you say in your original post that it is the first time you hear anyone make any valid points at all? You either lied then or you lied now. Either you had heard others make the same points before (again, and again, and again) or you had not.

These arguments are nothing new, they are what the right has been saying since the issue first surfaced several years ago. They even coined the term "activist judges" to reffer to judges who want to legislate from the bench. Was that not clear enough for you when they coined that phrase? What about during the debates when Bush gave this very same argument? was that not clear enough then? It sounds to me like its simply the very first time you've ever listened to the other side.

I've listened to the other side plenty of times, but they've always seemed to want me to take it on faith that they were right. And while I did listen a bit more to card because I respect him as an author, it helps that he isn't preaching, he's explaining his views. Now the "activist judges" argument has been made again and again, but it's never been explained beyond "Those damn judges, they're letting the gay's marry. Damn activist judges!"

The most important thing that Card does is he always seems to explain his positions fully, rather than expect his readers to just take what he says on faith.

I've listened to the other side plenty of times, but they've always seemed to want me to take it on faith that they were right. And while I did listen a bit more to card because I respect him as an author, it helps that he isn't preaching, he's explaining his views. Now the "activist judges" argument has been made again and again, but it's never been explained beyond "Those damn judges, they're letting the gay's marry. Damn activist judges!"

The most important thing that Card does is he always seems to explain his positions fully, rather than expect his readers to just take what he says on faith.

It is obvious from your lack of knowledge on the subject that you have not listened to the other side. Who did you listen to? Bill O'Riley makes himself very clear, as does Rush Limbauh, and Sean Hannity, as did George W. Bush and Tucker Carlson and every conservative who has ever argued the topic. You just never listened.

Okay, first of all, if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity got together and proclaimed grass to be green, I would start doing complicated tests to make sure that grass wasn't, in fact, purple. I'm sure they've made some sense between lies and rhetoric, but it's indistinguishable from the rest of what they say.

And yes, in some cases, I haven't listened as often as I should have. But from the "activist judges" angle the focus from the right has been far more on what the judges descided than whether or not they should have the power to descide that kind of thing.

So yes, to some degree I've failed to listen, but perhaps that's only because I haven't been provided with anything worth listening to.

I find it funny, how liberals, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to name calling.

I find it funny, how conservatives, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to labelling

He makes quite a convincing argument if you dont' read every other word

and if you buy his premises, of course

Any discussion on the internet including Science Fiction, Homosexuality, or Libertarians is not complete without a mention of Robert A. Heinlein.

Copulation is spiritual in essence -- or it is merely friendly exercise. On second thought, strike out "merely." Copulation is not "merely" -- even when it is just a happy pastime for two strangers. But copulation at its spiritual best is so much more than physical coupling that it is different in kind as well as in degree.
The saddest feature of homosexuality is not that it is "wrong" or "sinful" or even that it cannot lead to progeny -- but that is more difficult to reach through it this spiritual union. Not impossible -- but the cards are stacked against it.
But -- most sorrowfully -- many people never achieve spiritual sharing even with the help of male-female advantage; they are condemned to wander through life alone.

You can now continue however you like, and the gods of the intarwebmachine will be appeased.

and if you buy his premises, of course

and assumptions.

for example:
"...no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society. Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process."

which ignores the traditional role of the courts to interpret the constitutionality of the law, as well as the philosophical underpinning of the whole theory of rights the united states technically operates under. rights are not supposed to be subject to democratic processes. if the courts find that some law violates rights, they can get rid of it. even if it means that we have to let black people vote and go to school and everything. the fact that the majority in some particular area likes violating those rights has no bearing on anything.

and then there is his contention that heterosexual marriage has to have special protected status and be actively promoted by the state or civilization will collapse. seems to me that civilization is much more likely to collapse from ecological or economic factors than it is from gays getting married. but maybe he has access to better data than i do...

Robert Heinlein is gay? :eek:

and if you buy his premises, of course

I thought he proved his importaint points. If I were to read it again I could probably pick out a few places that could be contended. I won't try to defend the essay from "You know who volunteers to be in the military? Not gays!" on.

Sounds like he objects to the political processes being used, as well as the opening by law of the term 'marriage' to include homosexual relationships.

I pretty much agree with him. I hate when politics attempts to change language. Language is thought. Thought is control!

Sounds like he objects to the political processes being used, as well as the opening by law of the term 'marriage' to include homosexual relationships.

I pretty much agree with him. I hate when politics attempts to change language. Language is thought. Thought is control!
yeah, but the gay marriage debate is about law. gays can already get married, they just can't have that marriage legally sanctioned. a number of religious groups will marry homosexual couples, and in the eyes of those groups gays are married, they just aren't married in the eyes of the state.

Gay marriage has not harmed society in countries where it was legalized. In fact, it makes societies more open and tolerant to other forms of life and love instead of thinking the egocentric way that their heterosexuality is the only good and righteous thing to do.

The only problem is that in most, gay relationships, there is a feminine one and a masulain one, so really, its the same thing as if you had 2 different sexs in the same house. Plus I dont see how there is a different, besides the "equipment" which is tabo to see anyway, of either gender. So that argument is small. Hoesntly, if teh gays want to have teh tax penilty for being married, i dont see how the goverenment can lose on this subject.

Those people are mindless and meaningless. If you want to understand the opposing view you need to listen to people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley. Listening to the mindless masses of the right is like listening to the stoner hippies as if they represented the left.

Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are mindless members of the right.

Shouting down guests on your show is not exactly intellectualism.

Robert Heinlein is gay? :eek: no he's dead, he may not have been gay, but he certainly had homoerotic elements to his work. also a creepy obsession with oedipal incest.

no he's dead, he may not have been gay, but he certainly had homoerotic elements to his work. also a creepy obsession with oedipal incest.

Incest in general. I think he was trying to challenge accepted norms more than anything else though. Or perhaps he wanted to do his sister. We'll never know.

Hmpf so Card is a Christian Conservative? Ah well.

I like the lame logic of gays aren't being denied their rights to marry. Gay men can marry women and gay women can marry men.

Well slick for some reason I don't like the idea of my sister or daughter marrying a gay man.

If they want to get married, why not? It's not hurting anybody. The Super high divorse rate in the US, isn't driven by the thought of gay marriage.....

The fact that children can't result? What percentage of gay men plan to have children? If I had to base it from the ones I know, it's pretty small.

Ahh well Orson. At least you are a good scifi writer.

Incest in general. I think he was trying to challenge accepted norms more than anything else though. Or perhaps he wanted to do his sister. We'll never know.
Can't it be both?

yeah, but the gay marriage debate is about law. gays can already get married, they just can't have that marriage legally sanctioned. a number of religious groups will marry homosexual couples, and in the eyes of those groups gays are married, they just aren't married in the eyes of the state.

Yeah, and that's stupid. It's one thing to talk of right to chose one's sexuality... but is there really a 'right to have your sexuality recognized by the state?'

The fact that there are tax breaks for married people is already stupid, I don't see why just about anyone can get 'married' to some random person to avoid paying taxes. It's not fair to bachelors. BACHELORS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

Can't it be both?

That too.

Yeah, and that's stupid. It's one thing to talk of right to chose one's sexuality... but is there really a 'right to have your sexuality recognized by the state?'

The fact that there are tax breaks for married people is already stupid, I don't see why just about anyone can get 'married' to some random person to avoid paying taxes. It's not fair to bachelors. BACHELORS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

Actually, there is only a tax advantage in some circumstances. In others married people pay more tax than a similarly situated unmarried couple.

I don't know the exact figures, but I would imagine most gays that married would end up paying more in income tax.

If they want to get married, why not? It's not hurting anybody.

but but but...

the
end
of
civilization
as
we
know
it

but but but...

the
end
of
civilization
as
we
know
it

I am curious, does that viewpoint extend to polygamy?

I think his argument about families needing to be a dad, a mom, and children is weak. The American nuclear family wasn't really the norm till well into the 20th century. The extended family (toss in grandparents, an aunt or an uncle or two) was the norm for a long time. Heck, many Japanese feel that the break down of the extended family to the nuclear family is the cause of many of that country's woes right now. He also does not answer the question on if mariage is for procreation what can be said about couples unwilling or unable to reproduce?

Besides, the definition of mariage has changed a great deal over the years. Personally, I'm happy to be living now, the idea of a public deflowering sounds a wee bit much for me.

Every day is the end of the world as we know it, provided even one thing new happens. It's no longer the world as we knew it, but it is in fact a whole new world for us to explore.

After reading about 2 pages of this and skimming the last one i got bored, so im sorry if this has already been brought up, but what about scrapping the idea of government marriages all together? A big issue with the homosexual community is the issue of respect, and equality, and i think they deserve it just as much as any other human being. They can create social contracts that in effect would be the same as a marraige, jsut under a differnt title. What i would support is keeping marraige spiritual, or personal, whichever term you preffer, and keep the legaly binding contract but under another name that doesnt apply to a man and a woman, like, economic and social binding contract, or... i dunno something catchier than that. i realize that, even though i dont understand it, there is a big spiritual issue about the sanctity of marriage, and if it were kept purely spiritual and the power of that word taken away from the government, that woupld undo the most irrational of arguements against it. No matter what sex you are you have the right to enter into a legaly binding agreement, i think its about time the government gave up treading on sacred ground and started worryng more about what they government is responsible for, like say...defence...or protecting human rights, or the economy... you know, those things that everyone forgets about... :D

poor guy. that mormonism is no good for the brain.

"...the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation..."

and what would that be, mr. mormon?I find it funny, how liberals, unable to make strong arguments, resolve to name calling.
In response to all this crap......

I am a mormon, and a liberal. I belive homosexuality to be a sin, yet I also belive it to be their right to choose. I do not support the banning of gay marrige. Yet all of this does not exclude me from my religion. Please guys, don't stereotype to this level.

In response to all this crap......

I am a mormon, and a liberal. I belive homosexuality to be a sin, yet I also belive it to be their right to choose. I do not support the banning of gay marrige. Yet all of this does not exclude me from my religion. Please guys, don't stereotype to this level.

I just need to say, i think its very noble and respectable of you to be able to have strong beleives but not try to force them on other people. There is a lesson in peace and nuetrality here at least the way i interpreted it, thank yo for giving this conversation a much needed push towards compromise/path of least resistance, and good healthy stuff like that. :D

Robert Heinlein is gay? :eek:Nope. He just had absolutely no prejudices, back in the 50's.

Probably the best response to Mr. Card’s rant is the focus of his rant: the well-reasoned opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html).

Read it. It more than adequately rebuts Mr. Card's disregard for constitutional government and fundamental rights.

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.

Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.

Gee. Mr. Card should glance at the U.S. Constitution before he makes such statements.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that the “judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” and this “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” etc. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As explained in Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803), the Constitution is the law of the land and it is the power of the courts to interpret and enforce the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were very clear on the power of judicial review.

We are not a pure democracy. Our Founders were horrified by the idea of pure democracy. They established a constitutional Republic.
One of the primary purposes of the Bill of Rights and the power of judicial review is to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority.

More specifically, before he stuck his foot firmly in his mouth, Mr. Card should have checked the Massachusetts Constitution before complaining about the actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Anyway, what about Brown v. Board of Education?

Or should segregation been allowed to continue because it was undemocratic for the courts to properly interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment?

I can name a long list of cases that have advanced our civilization but were derided as court-imposed “vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.”

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.

Trivializes a fundamental right into a mere game of semantics.

See the opinion.

Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.

Again, this is a fundamental civil right – one that is protected by federal and state constitutions – denied on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender.

Marriage is not just a “word” or a social institution – it is a legal institution and a civil right.

See the opinion.

And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.

Not true.

The nuclear family is a relatively recent concept.

Many different arrangements have existed in human history for the raising of children.

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

This has nothing to do with why many support gay marriage, but “sex-role expectations” are not inherently good. They do a great deal of harm.

People lacking in fundamental self-esteem don't need gold stars passed out to everyone in their class. Chances are, they need a father who will say -- and mean -- "I'm proud of you."

Assumes gays cannot be good parents.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization.

And gay marriage is not monogamous marriage because ……?

Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?

And this is relevant because …?

If gays are allowed to marry, suddenly no one will be monogamous?

In this delicate balance, it is safe to say that beginning with a trickle in the 1950s, but becoming an overwhelming flood in the 1960s and 1970s, we took a pretty good system, and in order to solve problems that needed tweaking, we made massive, fundamental changes that have had devastating consequences.

…
We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."

Little historical problem here.

As noted, the nuclear family became a focus in the US in the 1950s – the exact time Mr. Card says it started to break down.

And you might want to check what passed for families in the Bible.

Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

….

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

Scarily echoes the arguments that were made against interracial marriage.

We have never required procreation as a condition of marriage. Now who is changing the meaning of the word?

So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

Ah, yes, the great Homosexual menace coming to get our children.

No good rant against gays is complete without this ridiculous canard.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

This is ugly.

Truly ugly lies.

The barbarians think that if they grab hold of the trunk of the tree, they've caught the birds in the branches. But the birds can fly to another tree.

And I don't mean that civilized Americans will move. I mean that they'll simply stop regarding the authority of the government as having any legitimacy.

What happened to believing in our constitutional Republic?

Now it’s “do it our way or else.”

When liberals say things like this, they are called traitors or America-haters.

Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies? Those who believe in the teachings of politically correct college professors? Or those who believe in the traditional values that the politically correct elite has been so successful in destroying?

The irony of these statements in an age when homophobes bar homosexuals from serving in the military –- costing our country of the service of valiant men and women –- would be sweet if it was not so disgusting.

Not that i dont agree with you... and i do basically completely... but in defence of card... he does write some good sci fi ^.^ seriously though, i think that even though i am more leaning towards an oppinion like yours, i would ask you if card had any research backing those seemingly false statements he made. If he didnt mention his sources then there is no point in trying to play devils advocate at all except for the fact that some of that could have been taken so wildly out of context, that before backing down from total nuetrality on the issue i suppose need to read through his essay. either way, thank for defibrilating my brain.

[lots of good stuff]

nice job on the trashing. you are more patient than i.

The nuclear family is a relatively recent concept.

Many different arrangements have existed in human history for the raising of children.

for example, the old mormon system. of which card must be aware, being a mormon and all. in case anyone didn't get it, this is what i meant with my mention of mormonism a couple pages back.

*snip*
*applauds*
*standing ovations*

I have lost all respect for Card. Too bad.

The "Marriage has always been between x and y" argument is so old that I'm surprised anyone still believes it:

Colonial man: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and his chattel – and so it will always be! Indeed, once married, a woman became the property of her husband – his chattel."

Slaveholder: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between two white people – and so it will always be!”

16 US states in 1967: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman of the same skin color – and so it will always be!"

The definition of marriage is highly dynamic and varies between cultures. How can anyone say that it will always be the way it is today with a straight face?

Okay, first of all, if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity got together and proclaimed grass to be green, I would start doing complicated tests to make sure that grass wasn't, in fact, purple. I'm sure they've made some sense between lies and rhetoric, but it's indistinguishable from the rest of what they say.

And yes, in some cases, I haven't listened as often as I should have. But from the "activist judges" angle the focus from the right has been far more on what the judges descided than whether or not they should have the power to descide that kind of thing.

So yes, to some degree I've failed to listen, but perhaps that's only because I haven't been provided with anything worth listening to.

it's funny, up until recently, I thought the American Left was at least mildly interested in the debate enough to keep up with the arguments on the other side of the aisle.
You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity to get it-you could sit down and go through Michelle Malkin's essays, or check out back issues of "The American Spectator", the "Wall Street Journal" (opinion pages), etc.
Not all right-wingers listen to talk Radio (I can't get clear AM reception most of the time), some of us read.

Ein Deutscher']*applauds*
*standing ovations*
*joins in*
Yeah, Cat tends to say all the things I'd like to say, but am too lazy to... :p :D

I have lost all respect for Card. Too bad.

The "Marriage has always been between x and y" argument is so old that I'm surprised anyone still believes it:

Colonial man: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and his chattel – and so it will always be! Indeed, once married, a woman became the property of her husband – his chattel."

Slaveholder: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between two white people – and so it will always be!”

16 US states in 1967: “Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman of the same skin color – and so it will always be!"

The definition of marriage is highly dynamic and varies between cultures. How can anyone say that it will always be the way it is today with a straight face?


If we give it a definition, we are automatically constraining and limiting marriage. If you don't want to have any limits, then it no longer has a definition, and ceases to exist as an institution.

While I'm not opposed to gay marriage, I do find that it would be just as rational to make the argument for polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage. One might even take it a step further - I know of plenty of pet owners who have officially designated their pets as their beneficiary in their wills. If a pet can have such legal recognition, why can't an owner marry their pet?

Where would you draw the line?

If we give it a definition, we are automatically constraining and limiting marriage. If you don't want to have any limits, then it no longer has a definition, and ceases to exist as an institution.

While I'm not opposed to gay marriage, I do find that it would be just as rational to make the argument for polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage. One might even take it a step further - I know of plenty of pet owners who have officially designated their pets as their beneficiary in their wills. If a pet can have such legal recognition, why can't an owner marry their pet?

Where would you draw the line?

Wee, the slippery slope again... saying the exact same things that others in my previous post probably said when marriage was changed before.

I have no problems with polygamy, other than the purely practical problems that might arise, i.e. who has power of attourney etc. As for the pet thing...

What does a marriage require? Everybody together now:

LEGAL CONSENT.

(And no, I don't believe that pets should be able to be will beneficiaries either. The idea is just ludicrous.)

Marriage does have a definition, but that definition changes to fit the society that it takes place in. Blacks and whites wanted the right to marry in the past. Now they can. Homosexuals want the right to marry now, and most likely they eventually will, too. (They already do in many countries, without any consequences involving people suddenly marrying pets or toasters or whatnot.)

All of the arguments concerning consenting adults and civil rights and equality under the law apply to polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage.

I don't think it would take long for the courts to arrive at that conclusion.

Not long at all.

All of the arguments concerning consenting adults and civil rights and equality under the law apply to polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage.

I don't think it would take long for the courts to arrive at that conclusion.

Not long at all.
I don't have a problem with that. I mean, think about it, if it's all consensual, who does it harm?

I don't have a problem with that. I mean, think about it, if it's all consensual, who does it harm?

One might take the argument further: what is the state's vested interest in regulating marriage of any kind? Other than social engineering, I can't see one. So why is the government in the business of issuing licenses?

It should get out of the business. As an example, in Canada, the government did not issue marriage licenses until the mid-1950s - all licenses were issued by the church.

Why not leave it all up to churches (or the organization of your choice - for all those non-religious folks)?

Find a church that will marry 14 women to 2 men if that strikes your fancy. Or a group marriage of homosexual men - say 12 men want to do that.

The government can still be interested in child support and division of property - but we can write contracts for property division and laws for child support. This would also leave divorce in the realm of the religion (or organization) of your choice.

Leave the government out of all of it.

All of the arguments concerning consenting adults and civil rights and equality under the law apply to polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage.

I don't think it would take long for the courts to arrive at that conclusion.

Not long at all.

Perhaps, but like I said, I personally have no problem with polygamy, and I don't really see why so many others would. Though I don't know how many would actually be interested in such a thing. I mean, a lot of married people seem to have enough problems with just one spouse, imagine the kinds of issues that would arise with several. :)

Also, like I said before, legal intricacies would take a lot of work to sort out. Who's the next of kin? In the case of divorce, do all the spouses have to sign the papers? And so on. If anything, problems such as these would no doubt be a larger hindrance to polygamy than public opinion.

Now, Card's argument is not that gay people are evil or undeserving of marriage, but instead that changing the rules of society, especially the rules about something as important as marriage, can do nothing but harm society. It seems to me that he makes a much better case against frivolous divorces than gay marriage.

that was my impression, too...it seems like his arguments more strongly support a prohibition of divorce than of gay marriage. it's pretty obvious that he's just another "gay marriage will lead to man-toaster marriage" alarmist, and it's disappointing to see an otherwise talented fellow succumbing to the slippery slope falacy.

his claim that changing the rules of society on something as important as marriage "can do nothing but harm society" is also 100% pure bunk, since we changed the rule to allow interracial marriage about 50 years ago and pretty much all sane people agree that was an improvement and a step forward for society. we radically changed marriage at its core when we asserted that women (and their property) do not belong to their husband exclusively. hell, DIVORCE seems to me to be the most radical change the institution of marriage has endured, yet Card doesn't seem prepared to turn back the clock on that one.


Another point he makes, and I'll start another thread about this one if people don't discuss it much here, is that this descision was handed down, not democratically, but by the courts. We on the left support it because we agree with the ruling, and many of us ignore the implications that this causes. Truly, as Card himself said, would we feel the same way if the courts were making descisions that we didn't support? I doubt it.
the courts were also the ones to hand down civil rights rulings. certain things should NEVER be decided by the majority, and that is precisely why the Founders designed our government the way they did. there are certain rights that the majority does not have the right to take from the minority, period, and many people believe that the right to wed is among those rights. personally, i don't believe government should be involved in marriage at all, but if it is going to be then i see no just grounds for the government to deny access to marriage to any adult citizens of this country.

Card also makes the foolish and ignorant choice to use the "anti-family" label for those who oppose restricting rights to only traditional, two-parent, heterosexual families. he perpetuates the false myth that biological families are the only "real" families, an insult to all adoptive families. he claims that "would-be parents take part in civilization only when they trust society to enhance their chances of raising children who will, in turn, reproduce," even though any loving and honorable parent wouldn't place nearly so much emphasis on their children reproducing. i know my parents put my welfare first, and would have done so even if they knew for a fact that i would never have biological children. to claim that parents' primary interest is ensuring their children make grandchildren is disgusting.

i love the Ender series, but i've known for a long time that Orson Scott Card is not somebody i like. it makes me sad to think of how much greater he would be if he didn't have so many blindspots, and what he could accomplish if he let go of his willful ignorance on several subjects.

I have lost all respect for Card. Too bad.

That makes extremely little sense. You do not agree with Card's views on homosexuality and its place in society, but how does that have any meaningful impact on the quality of his fiction?

Having no respect for his social views is one thing, but that should not negate the respect you have for him as the author of Ender's Game .

That was my first reaction, but . . .
You may have a point, though. I wonder how I would feel about Radiohead if they all turned out to be Nazis?

Perhaps, but like I said, I personally have no problem with polygamy, and I don't really see why so many others would. Though I don't know how many would actually be interested in such a thing. I mean, a lot of married people seem to have enough problems with just one spouse, imagine the kinds of issues that would arise with several. :)

Also, like I said before, legal intricacies would take a lot of work to sort out. Who's the next of kin? In the case of divorce, do all the spouses have to sign the papers? And so on. If anything, problems such as these would no doubt be a larger hindrance to polygamy than public opinion.

A fair number of Mormons would be interested in polygamy. And note that the LDS Church changed its stance on polygamy way back when only because the Federal government threatened Utah with violent intervention.

I would bet that within a month of polygamy being legal, the LDS Church would have a revelation, and change their policy to encourage it, as they did in the early days.

That would be millions of people.

One might take the argument further: what is the state's vested interest in regulating marriage of any kind? Other than social engineering, I can't see one. So why is the government in the business of issuing licenses?

It should get out of the business. As an example, in Canada, the government did not issue marriage licenses until the mid-1950s - all licenses were issued by the church.

Why not leave it all up to churches (or the organization of your choice - for all those non-religious folks)?

Find a church that will marry 14 women to 2 men if that strikes your fancy. Or a group marriage of homosexual men - say 12 men want to do that.

The government can still be interested in child support and division of property - but we can write contracts for property division and laws for child support. This would also leave divorce in the realm of the religion (or organization) of your choice.

Leave the government out of all of it.

Hmmm....11 husbands....

Oh, sorry. Hrm. ;)

Your idea is interesting, but I think it goes the wrong way. Marriages (in the legal sense) should only be performed by the government. Those that want the religious ceremony as well can get that from the church, though it would only be just that, a ceremony. (Not an original idea, I know.)

That makes extremely little sense. You do not agree with Card's views on homosexuality and its place in society, but how does that have any meaningful impact on the quality of his fiction?

Having no respect for his social views is one thing, but that should not negate the respect you have for him as the author of Ender's Game .

That was my first reaction, but . . .
You may have a point, though. I wonder how I would feel about Radiohead if they all turned out to be Nazis?

I know it makes no sense, but the human mind works that way. I am now no longer able to read his books without thinking of this nonsense. Once the mind finds an association, relevant or not, it's hard to get rid of it.

Like I said, it's too bad, because I rather enjoyed Ender's Game. (Didn't think it was great, but pretty good.)

I guess ignorance really is bliss sometimes.

All of the arguments concerning consenting adults and civil rights and equality under the law apply to polygamy, polygyny, and group marriage.

I don't think it would take long for the courts to arrive at that conclusion.

Not long at all.
good.

with any luck, the government would then begin to realize how stupid it is for the state to be involve in marriage at all.

One might take the argument further: what is the state's vested interest in regulating marriage of any kind? Other than social engineering, I can't see one. So why is the government in the business of issuing licenses?

It should get out of the business. As an example, in Canada, the government did not issue marriage licenses until the mid-1950s - all licenses were issued by the church.

Why not leave it all up to churches (or the organization of your choice - for all those non-religious folks)?

Find a church that will marry 14 women to 2 men if that strikes your fancy. Or a group marriage of homosexual men - say 12 men want to do that.

The government can still be interested in child support and division of property - but we can write contracts for property division and laws for child support. This would also leave divorce in the realm of the religion (or organization) of your choice.

Leave the government out of all of it.
YES! that would be ideal.

I can guarantee that I don't need to read it to know what it says. I am positive that it is just another guy who is uncomfortable around homosexuals and tries to find ways to justify limiting their freedoms while sounding like a reasonable man. I don't buy it. A reasonable person will say "You do as you please as long as I can do as I please."

One reason that people such as myself are opposed to gay marriage is because it is not moral and because it goes against the bible. I am not Atheist. I believe there is a God because science proves that there is. Many people seem to think that science proves that God does not exist but that is only because the media makes it look that way. If God created a man and a woman as the parents of our world then I believe that he wants us to follow their example. A very common saying: it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The bible also forbids homosexuality. I know some of you believe that people may be born gay. You believe this because psychiatrist say that it may be true. You would rather listen to a fifty year old psychiatrist rather than listen to our most ancient text. As for those of you that say times are changing and that the bible is no longer relevant: you will regret that in the depths of Hell.

You forget that not all citizens of the US are Christians, and for the government to truly represent the entire population of the nation it must be religion neutral.

One reason that people such as myself are opposed to gay marriage is because it is not moral and because it goes against the bible. I am not Atheist. I believe there is a God because science proves that there is. Many people seem to think that science proves that God does not exist but that is only because the media makes it look that way. If God created a man and a woman as the parents of our world then I believe that he wants us to follow their example. A very common saying: it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The bible also forbids homosexuality. I know some of you believe that people may be born gay. You believe this because psychiatrist say that it may be true. You would rather listen to a fifty year old psychiatrist rather than listen to our most ancient text. As for those of you that say times are changing and that the bible is no longer relevant: you will regret that in the depths of Hell.

I worry about my own sins, not the sins of others. I believe there is a God because I've personally experienced Him - not because of your fanciful idea that "science proves" anything.

The Bible is not our most ancient text. There are plenty of Sumerian texts that are older. By your logic, we should be worshipping the gods of Sumer.

It is not my place to point out any sins in any other person. I am not God. Jesus said that we were to love one another, be good to one another, and not to cast stones at each other. You seem to delight in casting stones.

Show me where Jesus (and not Paul) said that homosexuality is a sin.

I worry about my own sins, not the sins of others. I believe there is a God because I've personally experienced Him - not because of your fanciful idea that "science proves" anything.

The Bible is not our most ancient text. There are plenty of Sumerian texts that are older. By your logic, we should be worshipping the gods of Sumer.

It is not my place to point out any sins in any other person. I am not God. Jesus said that we were to love one another, be good to one another, and not to cast stones at each other. You seem to delight in casting stones.

Show me where Jesus (and not Paul) said that homosexuality is a sin.

I'm agnostic, but I will give you an "amen" for that one.

I'm agnostic, but I will give you an "amen" for that one.
Just my take on religion - if it isn't hopeful, loving, accepting, and forgiving - if God doesn't show His love for you in a way that you can see - then you're in the wrong religion.

Just my take on religion - if it isn't hopeful, loving, accepting, and forgiving - if God doesn't show His love for you in a way that you can see - then you're in the wrong religion.

Well said!

One reason that people such as myself are opposed to gay marriage is because it is not moral and because it goes against the bible.
So what? You can have your own personal beliefs so long as you don't force them on others. But whether you think it immoral and against has little to do with why they shouldn't marry. Hell, adultery is against the Bible too but you don't see any proposed amendments on that one. Why? Because the US judicial code is not based on Christian morality. The gay community is being denied a right- this can be argued in courts. What you are arguing is to legislate on basis of religion. This goes straight against the first amendment and would never constitute a valid argument in a professional court of law.

I am not Atheist. I believe there is a God because science proves that there is.
I don't know what science you've been reading there junior but I can assure you science has in no way done any such thing.
Many people seem to think that science proves that God does not exist but that is only because the media makes it look that way.
Oh yes, the conservative way. When in doubt and lacking any valid points, blame the media. *rolls eyes*

A very common saying: it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Then why did god create homosexuality?

I know some of you believe that people may be born gay. You believe this because psychiatrist say that it may be true. You would rather listen to a fifty year old psychiatrist rather than listen to our most ancient text.
Firstly it is not a psychiatrist. All scientific evidence is pointing towards it being genetic. Try researching something once in a while. Secondly, hell yes I would pay attention to an educated and informed scientist than a dusty old book compiled 2000 years ago. And no, it is not the most ancient text. Sumerian, Egyptian, and Chinese scrolls all outdate it by centuries, if not a couple thousand years.

As for those of you that say times are changing and that the bible is no longer relevant: you will regret that in the depths of Hell. If heaven only lets in people as judgemental as yourself, I'd gladly choose hell. The company would be far better.

I worry about my own sins, not the sins of others. I believe there is a God because I've personally experienced Him - not because of your fanciful idea that "science proves" anything.

The Bible is not our most ancient text. There are plenty of Sumerian texts that are older. By your logic, we should be worshipping the gods of Sumer.

It is not my place to point out any sins in any other person. I am not God. Jesus said that we were to love one another, be good to one another, and not to cast stones at each other. You seem to delight in casting stones.
Show me where Jesus (and not Paul) said that homosexuality is a sin.

I have only just welcomed the lord into my heart and I am kind of new at this so I really don't feel put out that you have taught me a lesson, and I see the mistake in posting that message earlier. Thanks. ;)

I have only just welcomed the lord into my heart and I am kind of new at this so I really don't feel put out that you have taught me a lesson, and I see the mistake in posting that message earlier. Thanks. ;)

Wow

Then why did god create homosexuality?
My turn to show someone up. God didn't create homosexuality. He created Human free will. It is our own imperfect minds that came up with the idea of homosexuality.
Science says that the odds :) of "Some greater being" creating the universe are very high.

I have only just welcomed the lord into my heart and I am kind of new at this so I really don't feel put out that you have taught me a lesson, and I see the mistake in posting that message earlier. Thanks. ;)
1Cor.4
[1] Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
[2] Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
[3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
[4] For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
[5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

My turn to show someone up. God didn't create homosexuality. He created Human free will. It is our own imperfect minds that came up with the idea of homosexuality.


I do believe that science disagrees with you there.

In a world where there is war, strife, and violence - in a world where parents neglect their children - where lives are destroyed by alcohol, domestic abuse, child molestation, and murder - where multinational corporations have taken the place of feudal lords and have enslaved the planet in the indentured servitude that is debt and credit - where the promise of one person to another (regardless of gender) is taken to be worthless out of sheer cynicism - where men and women who claim to be friends have nothing better to do than to slander each other for sport - in such a word of corruption, pain, and misery you should be looking for the places where love still flickers like a tiny candle - homosexuality is the last thing you should concern yourself with.

Regardless of how hard you wash and scrub, your own sin will not come clean of your own hand. How then could you wash away the sins of another? And why would you point and accuse another, when you could neither wash away their sin, nor cleanse yourself of your own?

Leave judgment to the Lord. Homosexuality is homosexuality. They are as human as any - because they are human. They have loves, wants, desires, and needs. If you tell anyone anything about the Lord, tell them that He loves them no matter who they are.

Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society.
Expansion of marriage priveleges to homosexuals is hardly that big of a change to society.

Science says that the odds :) of "Some greater being" creating the universe are very high.

Science does not say anything of the sort. T'is a nice try though.

Expansion of marriage priveleges to homosexuals is hardly that big of a change to society.

Yes, and too bad that quote didn't mention that the constitution also never stated that man could not marry man.

My turn to show someone up. God didn't create homosexuality. He created Human free will. It is our own imperfect minds that came up with the idea of homosexuality.


We are told to resist the temptation of the sin of the flesh - including homosexuality. There would be no need to resist something that wasn't already a desire, so we MUST have been made with the tendency towards homosexuality... no?


Science says that the odds :) of "Some greater being" creating the universe are very high.

No, it doesn't.

Science doesn't 'say' anything about 'god'.

We are told to resist the temptation of the sin of the flesh - including homosexuality.

And there are a multitude of sins. Other than the ones mentioned in the commandments, there doesn't seem to be a ranking for the rest of them.

I've just been having a look at Orson Scott Card's essay (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html) on gay marriage. Card is the popular writer of "Enders Game" and many other science fiction books. While I certainly don't agree with him, he's the first person I've seen to come against gay marraige and raise any valid points at all.

Now, Card's argument is not that gay people are evil or undeserving of marriage, but instead that changing the rules of society, especially the rules about something as important as marriage, can do nothing but harm society. It seems to me that he makes a much better case against frivolous divorces than gay marriage.

Another point he makes, and I'll start another thread about this one if people don't discuss it much here, is that this descision was handed down, not democratically, but by the courts. We on the left support it because we agree with the ruling, and many of us ignore the implications that this causes. Truly, as Card himself said, would we feel the same way if the courts were making descisions that we didn't support? I doubt it.

First - why is marriage 'important' to a society?

Immediately, any credence that might be applicable to Card's reasoning is devalued, by a flawed assumption at the outset.

Second - The assertion of 'gay marriage' circumventing democracy is also flawed. Connecticut has allowed 'civil unions' WITHOUT resorting to the courts.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050421/ts_alt_afp/usgaymarriage_050421155706

And there are a multitude of sins. Other than the ones mentioned in the commandments, there doesn't seem to be a ranking for the rest of them.

Which is the problem with lobbying against homosexual unions.

Since the biblical admonition is less about the 'act' of homosexuality, and more about the 'lust' - 'gay' marriage should be exactly as frowned upon by the Christian church as marriage of ANY two individuals that have a 'lustful' relationship.

But, of course, since the 'church' doesn't own marriage, it CANNOT stop people getting non-church, just as it cannot stop people 'living in sin'.

Maybe the attack on 'gay marriage' is a thin-end-of-the-wedge approach? A battle that the fundamentalists think they can win, to open up other battles that they currently cannot even fight?

Men (and women) of conscience should be thinking about the Holocaust... about those who did not step up to defend Jews.

If I do not step up to protect the 'gay' right to marriage, who will step up to protect me when someone decides British people shouldn't be allowed to marry Americans?

A battle that the fundamentalists think they can win, to open up other battles that they currently cannot even fight?

Not all fundamentalists are against gay marriage.

Not all fundamentalists are against gay marriage.

That isn't the point... the point is that fundamentalists that ARE fighting gay marriage, are 'tolerating' other sins of the same type.

So - are they victimising homosexuals?

Are they fighting what they perceive to be a less-supported 'evil'?

Or, are they just allowing homophobia to determine which sins they object to?

That isn't the point... the point is that fundamentalists that ARE fighting gay marriage, are 'tolerating' other sins of the same type.

So - are they victimising homosexuals?

Are they fighting what they perceive to be a less-supported 'evil'?

Or, are they just allowing homophobia to determine which sins they object to?
They're casting stones at a group that they believe somehow doesn't include them. Rather than examine their own faults, weaknesses, problems, etc., they puff themselves up with the "holier than thou" crap and rain stones on convenient groups.

The problem is that it's not very Christian to do that. In fact, it's the opposite of what Jesus taught. Read Luke 15, and tell me what he thought of the self-righteous.

makes sense. If it were put to a vote, the majority of Americans would vote to define marriage between a man and a woman, but that doesnt make the majority of americans right, does it. Yes, its what the people want, but the people are wrong. On issues like this, we cant put it to the democratic process, thats like voting to define one plus one as equalling three! You cant vote on that, its a fact, marriage isnt between a man and a woman, its between two people who want to be together until it stops being spiritually beneficial for both parties! The majority can be wrong, the minority can rule the majority when the majority are blithering idiots.

The majority can be wrong, the minority can rule the majority when the majority are blithering idiots.

Yes, why don't we get rid of representative democracy, and embrace Leninism. After all, the proletariat doesn't know what's good for it.

Those people are mindless and meaningless. If you want to understand the opposing view you need to listen to people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley. Listening to the mindless masses of the right is like listening to the stoner hippies as if they represented the left.

You've mentioned these partisian hacks way too many times in this thread and give them way too much credibility. I think I just outed you as a FOX news propagandist. It is pretty sad if you truely believe Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riely are intellectuals that have solid points on anything.

speaking of mormons and gay marriage though:

My gf's sister is Mormon and was asking me what I thought about gay marriage. I said that no matter what their gender, that if two people are in love and want to marry each other then they should be able to share their love eternally and have it recognized legally. I asked her what she thought and she said it was wrong.

I asked how and she could only come up with the lame" "It's hurts my marriage and is a sin"

me: " how does it hurt your marriage?"

her: "it just does"

me: :rolleyes: "Why should people who don't believe as you do be legally bound to your religious beliefs?"

her: "I want to help them go to Heaven"

me: "Can't you come up with any good reasons?"

her: "Those are good reasons"

My gf's sister is Mormon and was asking me what I thought about gay marriage.

Your gf's sis is Mormon yet she (your gf) isn't? Wow.

As for the rest, isn't it both funny and sad that the really 'button-down' religions encourage such knee-jerk responses? And isn't it amusing to try following the twisting logic? It sounds like she feels her marriage is threatened by homosexuals...wonder why she might feel that way?

LOL

They're casting stones at a group that they believe somehow doesn't include them. Rather than examine their own faults, weaknesses, problems, etc., they puff themselves up with the "holier than thou" crap and rain stones on convenient groups.

The problem is that it's not very Christian to do that. In fact, it's the opposite of what Jesus taught. Read Luke 15, and tell me what he thought of the self-righteous.

What I perceive as the difference between Christians and 'christians'.

One group follows the actual teachings of Christ, the other group probably attend church on Sundays...

Your gf's sis is Mormon yet she (your gf) isn't? Wow.

As for the rest, isn't it both funny and sad that the really 'button-down' religions encourage such knee-jerk responses? And isn't it amusing to try following the twisting logic? It sounds like she feels her marriage is threatened by homosexuals...wonder why she might feel that way?

LOL


Her sister is mormon because she married a mormon guy and I guess she liked the religion. She was raised Catholic though so it's not too far of a leap. Her family sure had a hard time accepting it though. They saw her as as much a sinner as she does the gays I bet.

Including the original post, I still haven't seen a single valid argument against gay marriage.

Including the original post, I still haven't seen a single valid argument against gay marriage.
Here's one: Marriage is and should remain a religious ceremony. As such church and state should be separated.

HOWEVER, that brings problems as the government recognize some rights to spouses. So, in order to make everyone happy, I propose that the term "civil union" be used from now on by the state and that religious marriage be a recognized form civil union. Gay marriage should be one too in order to provide the same rights to a gay couple.

But then the religious right wouldn't agree, now would they?

Here's one: Marriage is and should remain a religious ceremony. As such church and state should be separated.

HOWEVER, that brings problems as the government recognize some rights to spouses. So, in order to make everyone happy, I propose that the term "civil union" be used from now on by the state and that religious marriage be a recognized form civil union. Gay marriage should be one too in order to provide the same rights to a gay couple.

But then the religious right wouldn't agree, now would they?

'Marriage' isn't a religious institution, no matter how much the 'church' might claim it is, or wish it is.

'Marriage' existed long before any contemporary 'church' was taking even baby-steps.

'Marriage' isn't a religious institution, no matter how much the 'church' might claim it is, or wish it is.

'Marriage' existed long before any contemporary 'church' was taking even baby-steps.

Thank you for that. The various churches out there have done a very good job of needlessly insinuating themselves into the lives of adherents and non-adherents alike that it is hard for some of us to recall that there was time when we were happily without those who would claim to be closer to God than their fellows.

also, marriage can remain a religious ceremony even if gays are allowed to marry right? noone is forcing religions against homosexuality to marry gay men and women are they? Besides, marriages are also done without religions involved even with a ban on gay marriage. so that argument doesnt hold water, or beer.

and if you want to change the name, I think we should use the term gay marriage instead of civil union.

"Are you two married?"

"No we're gay married. We got gay married two years ago today. Now we are celebrating our gay anniversary."

and if you want to change the name, I think we should use the term gay marriage instead of civil union.

"Are you two married?"

"No we're gay married. We got gay married two years ago today. Now we are celebrating our gay anniversary."
Then it's settled. :fluffle:

Where do we go to have congress vote on it?

I don't know but I have never done this before

maybe we should garner support and start a specific thread about it

Did i use that word ^ rightly in such a manner as to behold a statument?

ok 4/20 carried over a day

g'nite

We are told to resist the temptation of the sin of the flesh - including homosexuality. There would be no need to resist something that wasn't already a desire, so we MUST have been made with the tendency towards homosexuality... no?
Science doesn't 'say' anything about 'god'.
Tendency? I don't think it is. Our brains are always working, always coming up with brand new ideas that have never existed before. We are not simply computers that have been programmed. As such, our brains came up with the concept of murder, the concept of thievery, and the consept of homosexuality. Now don't get me wrong. I do not place homosexuality in the same category of murder or stealing. I just don't believe it should even be existent. If you look at the ancient Roman civilization you will see that the reason for the downfall of their once great down fall is that they threw out all of their morals. That is a major reason that no matter what, no country, no civilization will ever last indefinitly. I place homosexuality in that category. I guess that you all think that I am a bad person for that but I will be damned if I ever throw down my beliefs for anyone short of god.

You are correct that science does not say anything about God. However, scientist say that the odds of our solar system coming about so perfectly and completely randomly are neary astronomical. Some scientist believe that some outer force (they claim that it may be aliens but that is only because scientist are steadfast in their belief that nothing spiritual can exist) probably created our solar system.

I love the idea that because the odds are so against something happening, that means some outside force must be involved to have made it so.

Ok, to lay this to rest - The universe is roughly 14 billion years old, I believe. There are trillions of galaxies with trillions of solar systems in each one.

Even if the odds are 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 out of 100000000000000000000000000000, eventually it'll happen given enough time.

We wouldn't be here to ask the question if it hadn't happened at least once. Sheesh.

And as for gay marriage, I really don't care. From a legal standpoint, I don't see how its ok to limit one group of ppl.

However - I hate marriage. I hate kids too. How breeding is a privilege or honor is beyond me...

Tendency? I don't think it is. Our brains are always working, always coming up with brand new ideas that have never existed before. We are not simply computers that have been programmed.


You don't have any evidence to support this, though, do you? How about the idea that our brains ARE simply computers... albeit, very coplex ones? We store data in chemical format from our first sensory moments, and we learn structures of thought and behaviour from our first cognitive moments... who says that my brain is anything MORE than a computer... and why should I think that any 'original thought' I have is anything MORE than my 'computer' processing all the available data, through the persepctive of my chemically stored experiences?


As such, our brains came up with the concept of murder, the concept of thievery, and the consept of homosexuality.


Animals kill each other... even within a species. Animals steal from each other, even within communities. All we do that is different, is name it.


Now don't get me wrong. I do not place homosexuality in the same category of murder or stealing. I just don't believe it should even be existent.


Whether or not you like it being existent is irrelevent. Homosexuality IS existent. It is part of reality, and it always has been, as long as sexual creatures have existed. It exists in the wild, it exists in 'civilised' society. You might as well accept that, and move on.


If you look at the ancient Roman civilization you will see that the reason for the downfall of their once great down fall is that they threw out all of their morals. That is a major reason that no matter what, no country, no civilization will ever last indefinitly. I place homosexuality in that category.


No - Rome fell because it was an expansionist empire, which had reached the limits of it's supportable expansion. You cannot continue to expand without increasing resources, and Rome was actually losing resources just to fund it's maximum expansion. Couple that with the ability to communicate rapidly over long distances (or lack of it) and you have two reasons why Rome fell.

The other chief reason connects to those two mentioned above - and that is the de-centralisation of power, or the fear of it. Later leaders disempowered their subordinates due to fear of revolt... and the more successful a subordinate became, the more likely he was to be isolated in a remote conflict.

'Morality', and especially 'sexual morality' had little, if anything, to do with the fall of Rome.


I guess that you all think that I am a bad person for that but I will be damned if I ever throw down my beliefs for anyone short of god.


I don't think you a bad person. I think you are wrong, possibly misinformed, but not a bad person.


You are correct that science does not say anything about God. However, scientist say that the odds of our solar system coming about so perfectly and completely randomly are neary astronomical.


Irrelevent, I'm afraid. Our solar system isn't 'perfect'... nor especially unlikely, given almost infinite space, and eternity.

Anyone who makes such suppositions is likely trying to push their own agenda. There is just no point in discussing the probabilities of something that has ALREADY happened.


Some scientist believe that some outer force (they claim that it may be aliens but that is only because scientist are steadfast in their belief that nothing spiritual can exist) probably created our solar system.

Some scientists believe the Earth is hollow. What 'some scientists' believe does not represent 'scientific thinking' as a whole.

You are correct that science does not say anything about God. However, scientist say that the odds of our solar system coming about so perfectly and completely randomly are neary astronomical. Some scientist believe that some outer force (they claim that it may be aliens but that is only because scientist are steadfast in their belief that nothing spiritual can exist) probably created our solar system.
I look at how many solar systems there is and put that next to your odds and I am almost convinced that we are not alone.

The universe is huge. Even with those kinds of odds, it's bound to happen somewhere. We are lucky that it happened here and not over the orion system, sure. To say that God must be behind it because of those odds is kinda hard for me to conceive. I would venture that god played with the odds in designing a universe where no two solar systems are alike. And with each planet in each solar system a potential for life, the odds were definitively in Life's favour.

You are correct that science does not say anything about God. However, scientist say that the odds of our solar system coming about so perfectly and completely randomly are neary astronomical. Some scientist believe that some outer force (they claim that it may be aliens but that is only because scientist are steadfast in their belief that nothing spiritual can exist) probably created our solar system.

That I that most ill-informed statement that I have ever read. Ever.

Science is the measurement of the physical universe. Science doesn't deny the spiriutal. It simply has nothing to do wit the spiriutal because it canot be measured.

Also, no scientist in their right mind would seriously claim that the Solar System was probably created by aliens.
Other then the "where did the aliens come from" problem, there is no evidence to support the existance of aliens. There is also no evidence to suggest that the solar system is artifical.

Incidently, spiritual creation explinations beg the question "where did God come from". If God had to create the universe someone had to create God and someone had to create the Godmaker in turn.


As for the homosexuals can live together without marriage if they want argument, I have this link.

http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status

Rights are being denied to couples based on the gender of one member. That is quite obvious. If Congress made it illegal for women to work in a post office everyone would be screeming at the injustice. Same difference.

Here's one: Marriage is and should remain a religious ceremony. As such church and state should be separated.

HOWEVER, that brings problems as the government recognize some rights to spouses. So, in order to make everyone happy, I propose that the term "civil union" be used from now on by the state and that religious marriage be a recognized form civil union. Gay marriage should be one too in order to provide the same rights to a gay couple.

But then the religious right wouldn't agree, now would they?

There's an evangelical minister who occaisionally appears on Al Franken's radio show, and he suggested that exact same thing. Get the government out of marriage altogether. The government can recognize a civil union, and if the couple feels like it they can go to their church of choice and have them bless the union as a marriage.

There's an evangelical minister who occaisionally appears on Al Franken's radio show, and he suggested that exact same thing. Get the government out of marriage altogether. The government can recognize a civil union, and if the couple feels like it they can go to their church of choice and have them bless the union as a marriage.

Or, alternatively, get 'religion' out of marriage completely.

Since, marriage pre-dates any of the modern 'religions', and is a purely 'civil' arrangement that just happens to have comparative 'religious' rituals.

Let everyone that chooses to, marry.

If they want a little party at the church of their choice after... that's fine, and they are free to do so.

Or, alternatively, get 'religion' out of marriage completely.
How do you suggest that be done?

How do you suggest that be done?


Fire! And lots of it!

How do you suggest that be done?
The government doesn't recognize any religious marriage whatsoever.
You want to be married before the law? Sign this paper over at city hall.

You are married according to this or that church? Good for you. That doesn't mean you're married in the eyes of the IRS, for example.