so... Orson Scott Card... boycott why?

[Lovely Mixture]

Card correctly distinguishes between unions that can have children and others that cannot. This distinction is rational, given that marriage confers additional rights to those who contract it, some of which have a cost for the taxpayers. The (potential) contribution of new individuals that marriage can provide is the reason of those rights, rights that individual citizens that pay their taxes and are otherwise valued members of society don't enjoy.

Homosexual unions can have children, invitro-fertilization, artificial insemination and all that jazz.

 

[EternallyBored]

Meh, you should know by now OP freedom of speech is only allowed on the Escapist if you say the right things. To be fair, the bloke clearly has some backward views but a bunch of objectionable people have made a bunch of good art over the years. I don't remember much Polanski boycotting going on and he did some truly horrible stuff rather than just said some stuff. I expect quite a few Escapists will boycott the film but outside of the echo chamber of aggressive activist far left wing sentiment that is the Escapist, in the real world, I doubt the viewing figures will be impacted much; most people probably won't be aware.

What exactly do you think freedom of speech actually means? You seem to believe it means people have to buy your products or whatever you create.

Just meant to be a wry observation on the inconsistent and selective nature of modern "boycott", woe betide the person who makes a "problematic" (so sinister that word!) comment about homosexuals, women or a trendy race. However, specific incidents of actual criminality, bereft of the required "-ism" to attract activists, are ignored.

Then its a very poor observation based on selective blindness to the things you don't want to see. Boycotts are one of the lowest rungs on the ladder of activism, Card isn't even being seriously boycotted, a few groups put out a memo saying "hey there's an Ender's game movie coming out and Card financially supports anti-gay marriage organizations, LGBT groups might want to be aware of that", and then the media jumps on it and people pretend like every gay person in the country is signing petitions and going to protests or something.

In fact, the largest most organized boycott in the world currently has nothing to do with any "isms", it's against Monsanto's monopoly business practices and its stranglehold on the agricultural patents industry. "But surely the other boycotts must be all about these "isms" I so smugly deride". Not really, below that, the most money and activism goes to exploitative labor, boycotts on African goods coming from slave labor, agricultural food and animal treatment reforms, child welfare reform, and fighting poverty and medical costs in the United States.

Please stop pretending a few people on tumblr clamoring for a boycott of anything that offends them is anything more than just a few people trying to make internet waves. Boycotts are a real thing, that serve multiple purposes, and actually get rarely used in any serious manner against people like Card, they are primarily used against businesses with exploitative or discriminatory practices, the Chick fil a boycott was the last organized one that had anything to do with "isms". Your "wry" observations need work, generally they have to be based in some form of reality, not just what you wish reality was.

EDIT: Final note too, please stop misusing freedom of speech, it's cheap appeal to morality, and has nothing to do with this thread. Misrepresenting the Constitution just harms any legitimate point you might have made.

 

[EternallyBored]

Meh, you should know by now OP freedom of speech is only allowed on the Escapist if you say the right things. To be fair, the bloke clearly has some backward views but a bunch of objectionable people have made a bunch of good art over the years. I don't remember much Polanski boycotting going on and he did some truly horrible stuff rather than just said some stuff. I expect quite a few Escapists will boycott the film but outside of the echo chamber of aggressive activist far left wing sentiment that is the Escapist, in the real world, I doubt the viewing figures will be impacted much; most people probably won't be aware.

What exactly do you think freedom of speech actually means? You seem to believe it means people have to buy your products or whatever you create.

Just meant to be a wry observation on the inconsistent and selective nature of modern "boycott", woe betide the person who makes a "problematic" (so sinister that word!) comment about homosexuals, women or a trendy race. However, specific incidents of actual criminality, bereft of the required "-ism" to attract activists, are ignored.

Then its a very poor observation based on selective blindness to the things you don't want to see. Boycotts are one of the lowest rungs on the ladder of activism, Card isn't even being seriously boycotted, a few groups put out a memo saying "hey there's an Ender's game movie coming out and Card financially supports anti-gay marriage organizations, LGBT groups might want to be aware of that", and then the media jumps on it and people pretend like every gay person in the country is signing petitions and going to protests or something.

In fact, the largest most organized boycott in the world currently has nothing to do with any "isms", it's against Monsanto's monopoly business practices and its stranglehold on the agricultural patents industry. "But surely the other boycotts must be all about these "isms" I so smugly deride". Not really, below that, the most money and activism goes to exploitative labor, boycotts on African goods coming from slave labor, agricultural food and animal treatment reforms, child welfare reform, and fighting poverty and medical costs in the United States.

Please stop pretending a few people on tumblr clamoring for a boycott of anything that offends them is anything more than just a few people trying to make internet waves. Boycotts are a real thing, that serve multiple purposes, and actually get rarely used in any serious manner against people like Card, they are primarily used against businesses with exploitative or discriminatory practices, the Chick fil a boycott was the last organized one that had anything to do with "isms". Your "wry" observations need work, generally they have to be based in some form of reality, not just what you wish reality was.

EDIT: Final note too, please stop misusing freedom of speech, it's cheap appeal to morality, and has nothing to do with this thread. Misrepresenting the Constitution just harms any legitimate point you might have made.

Ha ha, well that's me told! Not sure if the US Constitution applies in the UK but I will take it as a wider point of on invoking "freedom of speech".

Yes, well, now I feel bad for coming off kind of rude back there. I get where you're probably coming from with your original post, this is the internet and people like to whine on it, and Tumblr and facebook has quite a few social justice warrior types that like to jump on anything remotely offensive. Yeah, those people are stupid, but outside the internet no one takes them seriously, certainly not any national or international activist organizations. The media blew the whole card boycott way out of proportion, despite the hyperbole traded on the internet, the hate for Card has never really gone beyond, "yeah the guy's a douchnozzle, so I'm not going to buy his stuff", news networks tried to make it look like every gay rights group in the U.S. was obsessing over the movie; they weren't.

As for freedom of speech, yeah whenever that gets brought up I kind of assume they are talking about the U.S. constitution, I'll admit I have no idea what the UK's speech laws look like. In the U.S., freedom of speech only applies to the federal government, so it only becomes a valid talking point if the government is trying to repress speech or people are trying to lobby the government to repress speech. If the government ever actually does try to censor Card in some fashion, then yes I'll be right there with you yelling about violations against the freedom of speech. Private places like this have no speech rights, if the site owners decide tomorrow that they will censor anyone that doesn't praise Jim Sterling as their new lord and savior, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Within the U.S. at least.

 

[Animyr]

Snip

You misattributed the quote.

Card correctly distinguishes between unions that can have children and others that cannot. ?marriage confers additional rights to those who contract it, some of which have a cost for the taxpayers. The (potential) contribution of new individuals that marriage can provide is the reason of those rights, rights that individual citizens that pay their taxes and are otherwise valued members of society don't enjoy?.I refuse to accept that this is completely equivalent to two people that stay together simply because they love each other.

Last time I checked, two people who love each other and wanted to spend their lives together are all that?s required to make a marriage. Maybe your cultural or religious background attaches the additional requirement of having children, and do that if you want, but marriage is a custom that varies between cultures and time periods and not all people give it the same connotations. Why should your definition of marriage be given favored treatment? Not because of your cultural or religious tradition, because not all of us (in fact, chances are most us) subscribe to that and we?re under no inherent obligation to.

This leaves us with practical reasons, and you seem to think that in an era of advanced medical technology and dwindling resources, it?s absolutely paramount that as many people as possible have children because?? You?re vague as to why, or why letting people (homosexual or otherwise) opt out of having children or being able to be legally married affects that so much. As if homosexuals can?t have children, and as if homosexual sex was anywhere close to the primary cause of falling birthrates. (Hint; it has to do with gender equality). Care to unpack that? I?m really not sure what you?re getting at.

And while I?ll grant you that people raising children deserve special considerations, why does the rights you think need to be conferred to those ?raising children? need to be exclusive to the legally married and heterosexual? Because the ability to have/raise children certainly isn?t, and nothing about these alternate family structures is inherently harmful either.

And if marriage is about procreation then the infertile, the old, heterosexual people who simply don't intend to have children due to personal or medical reasons, or maybe already have children but don't intend to have children with each other, (or, as Spot pointed out, those castrated or tube tied) can't get married either. What?s more important here; sexuality or child bearing?

 

[allonbacuth]

Anyone who would boycott a movie over such things probably wouldn't enjoy Ender's Game anyway. OSC might be a nutjob, but he is a pretty great author.

 

[Brad Shepard]

To quote a show that use to be good Oh my god who cares? Get over it people, guess what. PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS and ranting and raving about boycotts never does a damn thing.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Because one set can benefit the society in a fundamental way, and the other cannot.

Homosexual couples are capable of tending to children you know; they don't just become child eating monsters when they get married.

Hi LifeCharacter,

no one intends to project a new mccarthyism on homosexuals. Adoption, on top of being a different subject, is entirely different from procreation.

Don't start down this road. It's a stupid road filled with bullshit arguments and comparisons that fall apart the minute you actually look at them. Polygamous marriages, for instance, are restricted due to the belief that they're abusive and misogynistic, as shown in basically every depiction of them in media. And, other than the legal complications involved with having more than two partners (and more than one lineage) I don't see a reason to prevent such a thing so long as measures are taken to prevent possible abuse.

Why is this comparison inappropriate? If you read my reply to Animyr, you will see that it is a more than reasonable comparison.
You can argue that homosexual couples have more in common to heterosexual ones than they are to polygamous unions, but it makes no sense to dismiss them entirely as abusive and misogynistic.
If I was to use the same rhetoric of left-wing extremists I would have already been calling you "poligamophobe" or "poliandrophobe" for this last sentence.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

As for poly marriage, I (and many others) do support that as well under certain circumstances, though that isn't what we are discussing in this thread.

If you do, then you agree with my that restricting marriage to couples alone is unjust, it's inconsistent, and it's unfair toward other forms of union where people sincerely love each other.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Homosexual unions can have children, invitro-fertilization, artificial insemination and all that jazz.

So can single individuals, and the fact remains that only one person of the couple is the actual parent. It is definitely not the same thing and it is not an argument in support of marriage.

 

[JoJo]

As for poly marriage, I (and many others) do support that as well under certain circumstances, though that isn't what we are discussing in this thread.

If you do, then you agree with my that restricting marriage to couples alone is unjust, it's inconsistent, and it's unfair toward other forms of union where people sincerely love each other.

Indeed, I see no reason why marriage contracts shouldn't be available to any number of consenting adults provided they are all in a mutual relationship with each other. Unfortunately, since even socially liberal people are divided on the issue of poly marriage the idea has a long way to go before it has a hope of becoming law. Still, with any luck same-sex marriage will help soften people up to the idea over time ;-)

 

[blackrave]

Funny how people discuss about boycotting product because there is some bad stuff behind the product
Yet most of these people consume fossil oil products like candy
Hi-fucking-larious
Only way to make sure you don't hurt no one is to commit suicide (and even then the fact of suicide will hurt people close to you)
Sad fact is that if you are living it is inevitably that you will hurt someone, directly or indirectly.
All one can do is try to limit direct damage, indirect damage is something no one can be truly sure about.
You can never know if the company you support by your money is indirectly indirectly.. blablabla.. indirectly indirectly hurting someone/something.
So stop over thinking things, people!

 

[EternallyBored]

SNIP

Yes, well, now I feel bad for coming off kind of rude back there. I get where you're probably coming from with your original post, this is the internet and people like to whine on it, and Tumblr and facebook has quite a few social justice warrior types that like to jump on anything remotely offensive. Yeah, those people are stupid, but outside the internet no one takes them seriously, certainly not any national or international activist organizations. The media blew the whole card boycott way out of proportion, despite the hyperbole traded on the internet, the hate for Card has never really gone beyond, "yeah the guy's a douchnozzle, so I'm not going to buy his stuff", news networks tried to make it look like every gay rights group in the U.S. was obsessing over the movie; they weren't.

As for freedom of speech, yeah whenever that gets brought up I kind of assume they are talking about the U.S. constitution, I'll admit I have no idea what the UK's speech laws look like. In the U.S., freedom of speech only applies to the federal government, so it only becomes a valid talking point if the government is trying to repress speech or people are trying to lobby the government to repress speech. If the government ever actually does try to censor Card in some fashion, then yes I'll be right there with you yelling about violations against the freedom of speech. Private places like this have no speech rights, if the site owners decide tomorrow that they will censor anyone that doesn't praise Jim Sterling as their new lord and savior, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Within the U.S. at least.

Hey, no worries mate, you were only mirroring my originally quite narky tone You write cool posts, keep up the good work.

We have the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) over here, which is enacted into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The UK courts have a duty to read all UK law in line with ECHR and the HRA. The ECHR provides for Freedom of Speech but also gives pretty wide derogations where it can be curtailed (e.g. situations of national defence, to keep the peace, to ensure public health). Very simply, the idea is you balance the two opposing rights, so you have say a paper's right to print defence documents and weigh that against the harm done to national defence and reach a decision. The claimant can appeal up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - if it's important enough.

Very interesting you say the Constitution is limited to federal law because a big issue with the ECHR is that it was written to apply vertically (between state and citizen) but the ECHR is actually widening the scope immensely (through case law) to create horizontal applicability (between citizen and citizen). This means we have uneven applications of Human Rights. For example, a local govt worker can rely on human rights to bring a case against another worker because the employer, as the State, has a duty to oversee human rights but the private employee has no such redress (very, very generally).

My huge reservation with the ECHR is that the ECtHR has expanded the scope far beyond the original idea of basic freedoms and trade integration to avoid World War 3 in Europe (it was drafted immediately after WW2). As ever we have arses on both sides of the spectrum: right wingers desperate to repeal it so we don't have the tedious mucking about with fripperies such as trials and working rights and left wingers abusing the protections to drive through unfair perks for minorities and individuals and to attack sensible spending decisions in a recession. A special circle of hell is reserved for smug Human Rights lawyers who make a fortune keeping terrorist murderers in the country at public expense. I get abused quite frequently for not being totally "whoo hoo Human Rights Act" and accused of either being a right wing extremist or, increasingly frequently, "not understanding the law properly".

I just smile sweetly then go home to gaze at my law degree. ; )

Oh my, that's quite the involved explanation for a forum like this, but I appreciate it, it genuinely is interesting to hear how things are different in another country.

Other than the provisions for public safety that vary by state, the First Amendment makes no requirements for the types of speech that a private citizen can make. There is no horizontal applicability as far as the first amendment is concerned, speech is protected, no matter how vile, as long as it doesn't constitute a direct threat of violent action or incitement of others to immediate violent action. Much like Europe, there are asshats on both sides trying to exploit the system, but organizations like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)have come down on the side of groups like the KKK and others to protect speech rights when a government attempts official action against them. They usually win too, with proper permits, even outright hate groups like the KKK can legally hold rallies in public, the private citizen is also generally free to show up and boo the hell out of them as well.

It sounds like the main difference between the two, as far as you explain it anyway, is that the European government (the ones under the ECHR anyway) seems to have the power and mandate to enforce expression and speech laws between private citizens, whereas the First amendment only limits what laws the government can pass, and makes no mention of interaction between private citizens. Beyond public safety, U.S. law makes the assumption that private speech between citizens is between them and even in a public setting, you'll generally get away with whatever you want to say with no consequence from the government. Private property and employers have the right to restrict speech pretty much however they want, companies like Disney will make employees sign contracts that have some very interesting limits on how they can express themselves while on shift.

To use a famous example, the U.S. has a group known as the Westboro Baptist Church. They pretty much go around to events like soldier's funerals, gay pride rallies, and other public venues, and hold up signs expressing how "God hates Fags" and U.S. soldiers are burning in hell because the government isn't persecuting gay people (I'm sure you can imagine how unpopular condemning U.S. military personnel is to the general American public). They don't directly incite violence, so they are within their freedom of speech and expression to do this, private citizens have also responded by counter-protesting or using noise to drown them out at functions. Essentially, without violence or other violations, both sides are expressing themselves within the bounds of free speech.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Destroying the "government that attempts to change it (definition of marriage)" can be as simple as campaigning against those in power who voted for marriage equality and helping fund their political opponents in the next election. He never mentions armed insurrection and I believe it is obvious he is talking about bringing down any government that would help pass marriage equality in democratic means, especially when read in context.

Yeah, no. When you talk about destroying your mortal enemy, you generally don't mean voting against it.

In any case:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

I could be wrong but having read a lot of not just Card's fiction but also essays and other non-fiction, I just do not believe he was seriously calling for armed rebellion, not for a second. Why don't you email him and ask for clarification?

 

[Tono Makt]

Voip

Listen, H.P. Lovecraft was a fantastic racist, but I don't see anyone boycotting HIS work because of it. No, I see so much Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, and Great Old Ones in life that you'd think R'lyeh rose from the sea already. Put simply, you're not really fighting a war here and neither you or he is going to make any great headway in the meantime. Then, there's effects like with Alice In Wonderland. I seem to recall that that was suppose to be an insulting deconstruction of people that Carol hated, but instead it was a grand slam hit for the literature buffs, much to his shagrin. I think that if you really believe Orson's trying to be Peter, then you might do better by ignoring him.

It's been covered by other posters, but you snipped the part where I explained why there might be no boycott against Lovecraft - ignorance. I don't know a thing about Lovecraft's racism. Now that I know about it, I have even more reason not to buy his stuff. Up to now I've just had no interest in it. Anything of his that I've consumed has been second hand; reading a friends book, playing games influenced by Lovecraft, etc.

And ignoring him is the best thing one can do - but it may not have the desired effect. Hypothetically if you wanted to boycott Lovecraft due to racism, the best way to do it is to not buy his stuff. But then there are people like me who might be tempted to buy his stuff and be ignorant of an issue you feel strongly enough about to boycott his work. So you need to let me know why you are boycotting his work and why you think this is acceptable.

It's not the best solution, but there isn't a best solution for these kinds of problems.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I just went ahead and watched MovieBob's review, and knowing nothing of the man he blasted as the kind of the dicks, well obviously I wanted to know more... TO WIKIPEDIA!!!

Ha! You automatically get points in my book for using the classic Batman scene transition. Anyhoo, moving on.

Either way, I think your first problem is watching and/or relying on MovieBob reviews. He's gotten increasingly unhinged as time goes on, and he's downright awful at examining things objectively if they somehow touch a nerve for him. Case in point, Metroid: Other M. His video about it was half insulting everyone who didn't like it and half praising the game for the simple fact that it wasn't a FPS like the Prime series. He spent his entire 'Expendables' review alternating between insulting everyone who watched it and complaining that it was somehow detracting from other movies of completely different genres by simply existing. And that's to say nothing of the time he ranted about how the UNSC in Halo were more villainous than the Covenant because the former had uniforms, a well-structured military, and only one species while the latter was highly motivated (towards genocide) and multi-species (what with those slave-races filling things out for them).

Yeah so.... I read the wiki on him and it basically accounts to that he's religious and doesn't agree with gay marriage. About the worst of it was that he was a board member on some lobbyist group for defending marriage or some shit like that... Which really makes me wonder if everyone supports what GLADD does in it's quest to "promote equality."

I mean GLADD bullied Kevin Smith over Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back according to Malcolm Ingram, extorted him out of some amount of money so they wouldn't boycott the film over it's gay jokes.

Anyway, I went to the wiki expecting it to be all "This fucker says we should round them all up and shove 'em into ovens!"

I mean is there like something more concrete than that or are we collectively as a community calling this guy an asshole because he holds a backwards political view? Someone drop a little science on me cause I'm not getting it, guy seems to share the same view on it as Sean Hannity... And Sean's like the Diet Coke of conservative views.

Well...it's a bit more than that.

Probably the most simple reason is that he was a real asshole about the whole thing, and then became a completely different sort of asshole after the overturning of the DoMA. He actively told people that they should stop being intolerant of his belief that they should have fewer rights and go see his new movie. [http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/07/08/enders-game-orson-scott-card-statement/]

Also, he wants to destroy the government and replace it with a new one that won't let gay marriage become a thing. [http://laist.com/2008/08/01/orson_scott_card_scifi_writer_will.php]

And then there's a pile of other reasons. He's rather conservative, which plenty of people are...but most of them don't claim that Barrack Obama is going to turn into a dictator to sit amongst the likes of Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html]. Really and truly. He thinks that Obama is somehow simultaneously stupid and weak while also being brutal and dictatorial.

Here's a quote from Card:

Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination -- a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him "articulate" and a "great speaker") -- he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals. He despises ordinary people, is hostile to any religion that doesn't have Obama as its deity, and his contempt for the military is complete.

In the first sentence, holy shit, that's not okay, Mr. Card.

Ah, but wait! You've not yet see the part where he says that Obama's wish for a 'national police force' is an obvious sign that he's going to train and arm black gangbangers to murder anyone who opposes him.

Obama called for a "national police force" in 2008, though he never gave a clue about why such a thing would be necessary. We have the National Guard. We have the armed forces. The FBI. The Secret Service. And all the local and state police forces.

The trouble is that all of these groups have long independent histories and none of them is reliably under Barack Obama's personal control. He needs Brown Shirts -- thugs who will do his bidding without any reference to law.

Obama will claim we need a national police force in order to fight terrorism and crime. The Boston bombing is a useful start, especially when combined with random shootings by crazy people.

Where will he get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.

In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.

Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.

Yep. Orson Scott Card thinks that Barrack Obama's master plan involves turning the Bloods into the Waffen SS. And he'll defeat the noble right-wing militias by cutting off their bullet supply and giving his West Side Waffens armored cars, while he controls the common people by holding them hostage with government-funded healthcare.

Hmm...what else...oh, right. There was that time he rewrote "Hamlet." Yes, the "Hamlet." He thought it would be improved if the king was an evil child-molester who diddled Horatio and most of the male cast so much they all turned gay.

Also, people seem to think the movie was kind of shit anyway. So no worries. This is the easiest boycott there is.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

People who oppose the irrational oxymoron of gay "marriage",

Funny. You know the word 'oxymoron,' but you don't know that adding 'irrational' in front of it is pointless at best and a double negative at worst.

regardless of why, are people who deserve respect

Regardless of why? It doesn't matter at all? So if one person said that they opposed gay marriage because they hate homosexuals, you would respect them for that decision?

- especially in this time where many _actual_ bigots of all colours are intolerant of people with moral values.

Wait, are you trying to argue that people don't want gay marriage are trying to do so for...what reason?

Ironically his position on the subject is much more egalitarian than his opponents' - many people's inability to grasp this makes it all the more entertaining.

I don't know too much about this person but none of his quotes from Wikipedia are troubling. If he's being blasted only for opposing gay marriage, kudos to him.

Oh, do let me help you on that one.

See, Card doesn't simply not want gay marriage. He's an advocate of a violent insurrection against the federal government [http://laist.com/2008/08/01/orson_scott_card_scifi_writer_will.php] for the sole purpose of replacing it with one that won't permit gay marriage. Of course, a little later, he backtracked a bit after that comment...and settled on saying that gay marriage would be the literal end of American democracy.

If you'd like, I could give you some quotes from the time that he established quite neatly that he's a racist, too.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

There are ways same sex couples can have families; surrogacy, adoption, etc. In the US if someone in a same sex relationship dies there is all sorts of legal red tape and issues facing inheritance and the rights of the remaining guardian to the child.

Hi Spot,
while interesting topics, surrogacy is not the same thing as marriage and is more in the same league of adoption, given that only one is actually a biological parent.
I agree with you however that people should be able to decide what to do with their inheritance.

By you're reasoning should people who are known to be incapable of reproducing be allowed marry? Should married men be banned from getting vasectomies? Or are these only unfairly intrusive "issues" when they affect the normals?

This is the "classic" objection, and one that more often comes up in these discussions.
You are right to single this out as a discrepancy, you are less right in counting it as a reason for which homosexual marriage should be allowed. The reasons this discrepancy still exists today are both historical (people didn't have access to contraception in the past) and practical (sterility is not always easy to diagnose, and can in several cases be cured).

But regardless, the reasons marriage enjoys its privilege its because of those couples that do have children, not those that can't - or more sadly, don't want.
If you see this as a reason to extend marriage to homosexual couples, the next discrepancy would be, "why are polygamous unions denied the same rights? What about blood relatives? And what about singles that cannot find a partner?"

All this because no one has, so far, stated the _practical_ reason why someone should enjoy more rights than the standard taxpayer. In traditional marriage those are counterbalanced by the effort and cost of raising a family.
For all this I agree that it would be easier - and especially, fairer - to resolve this discrepancy exclusively rather than inclusively, denying it to those that cannot have children or don't want to. It certainly makes more practical sense, although conditions should be evaluated carefully.

Inheritance rights, rights of visitation (being considered someone's "family" is actually very important in law.

In Italy we have the same problems; I agree with you, everyone should be able to decide rights of inheritance and visitation regardless of blood bonds.

With each other but various ways to still have children you mean?

In case of conception, only one of them would be the parent. Adoption is a completely separate topic, one against which I don't have as many strong points.

So should divorce be outlawed or should I have just been taken away from my mother when she dumped my abusive father's ass and raised me on her own, providing a great home for me and serving as an incredible role model? I mean if having both genders represented is an absolute must? I mean if we're going to outlaw same sex marriage because both genders need to be represented even though there has been zero conclusive evidence that being raised by same sex parents is somehow worse than being raised by heterosexual parents then we might as well go mad with it.

Of course not.

Well if it's just male predisposition maybe every child should be forcefully relocated to a lesbian couple seeing as it will be super easy for them to stay together. I mean statistically female/female pairings are the least prone to infidelity than any other.

Uh...
...no?

Again, just so we're clear you do realise gay people can and do have children and the issues those children face because their parents can't marry are going to far outweigh any imaginary issues you seem to think arise from their parents having matching genitals?

My issue here is with the current definition of marriage, and with the inherent inequality of giving special rights to two people that love each other, but only if they are two; that, and separating those rights from the absolutely fundamental role of procreation.

Peace.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Snip

I'll simplify this for you, since you seem to be caught up on it. We aren't talking about polygamy. Got it? No polygamy here. Card doesn't really have a lot to say about polygamy. Gay rights activists aren't looking at polygamy. It's not part of this discussion. In fact, it's a logical fallacy because polygamy is unrelated to the discussion at hand. It'd be like saying, "You want to let people have guns? I suppose you'll want ketchup with your fries!"

So: No polygamy. No bestiality. No incest. Ya know, the Big Three.

Onto the argument itself.

I think you would agree with these claims:

A. Marriage provides benefits.
B. Providing benefits to couples raising children is good.

Therefore, deductively, couples raising children should be married. This syllogism includes adoption, surrogacy, etc.

Now, as to "Why Boycott Card." Well, he's a character that actively opposes this viewpoint. And not in the moderate sense. There are ample examples listed above: Calling for the destruction of the nation, donating HUGE chunks of money to organizations that have furthered the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda.

To me, it's self-evident that I don't want to chance it (even if that chance is minute) that some of my dollars may, eventually, make their way to a bill which proposes the DEATH PENALTY for being suspected of being gay.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Last time I checked, two people who love each other and wanted to spend their lives together are all that's required to make a marriage.

Hi Animyr,

I think that religion does not enter the picture here. I believe that you, like many others, in absolute good faith see only the similarities between heterosexual and homosexual unions - which is mutual love - and thus assume that this is the only requirement for marriage.
But you leave out of the picture the one, fundamental difference that homosexual couples will never be able to emulate, and this difference is precisely what gives marriage its privileged status.

Love is not the issue here - in order to focus on the core of the problem I will ask you directly: what is the practical reason that grants marriage advantages of economical and administrative nature? What is the condition that allows one or more citizen to enjoy those additional rights?
If you are truly egalitarian, government should allow any citizen to receive the same benefits in face of the same conditions. Could you be able to specify those requirements?

This leaves us with practical reasons, and you seem to think that in an era of advanced medical technology and dwindling resources, it's absolutely paramount that as many people as possible have children because...?

No, I didn't say this. I maintain that any society needs children to continue to exist; of course, in certain parts of the world we need to make less than before, but nonetheless children are and will always be fundamental to progress.

And while I'll grant you that people raising children deserve special considerations, why does the rights you think need to be conferred to those "raising children" need to be exclusive to the legally married and heterosexual?

They don't, of course. All children who are born anywhere deserve the same protection, and their parents deserve recognition for the task of growing the future generation.

And if marriage is about procreation then the infertile, the old, heterosexual people who simply don't intend to have children due to personal or medical reasons, or maybe already have children but don't intend to have children with each other, (or, as Spot pointed out, those castrated or tube tied) can't get married either. What's more important here; sexuality or child bearing?

I gave a detailed answer to this very issue in the answer to Spot [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.832965.20373511]; feel free to quote from there if you have any comments about it.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Indeed it is, in that it is arguably more beneficial to society at this time than procreation. Adoption takes a child currently supported by the state in a less than ideal situation and gives them (hopefully) caring parents who can give them a proper upbringing. Procreation leaves that child in their sorry state and has them be a continued burden upon society while simply adding another number to the growing population.

You are right here, it certainly takes a lot more courage to adopt than to father a child.
Procreation is, however, strictly necessary for continuation of society.

That's not to say that that's how it would be in a modern sense, far from it actually. The only opposition you'll get from me to a polygamous union in a western society is a slight "Ehh" in the event that the entire union is centered around one individual, mostly because it seems a bit unfair to their partners. If it's a union where everyone involved is married to everyone else, awesome, love your multiple spouses and enjoy. I see no reason why anything should stop such unions other than the possible complexities of the paperwork you'll probably have to go through to determine things like inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin, and custody.

Once again, good point. Marriage (and especially, divorce) law is already complex as it is - n-way unions would require a lot more... administrative overhead.

As for your response to Animyr, the government's stake in marriage is the next generation, not genetic reproduction of married couples. The government likely doesn't care how the child came into being so long as it wasn't out of a crime, it just wants the child to turn into a good citizen and not be a burden upon it. All of this is accomplished through adoption, or, as plenty of people have told you, any of the medical procedures available to procreate like invitro or surrogacy. Unless you're going to make a blanket ban that only young, fertile couples should be allowed to marry, this argument is hypocritical and nothing but an attempt to disguise bigotry as something valid.

As for gendered role models, anyone making that argument should be laughed at for their stupidity, their sexism, and their misunderstanding of how humans and child rearing actually works. You do not need a father and mother to develop properly; you can develop just fine with a single parent or two parents of the same gender, unless you're going to claim that all the people who've already done this are all dysfunctional. Sure there is a disadvantage to a single parent, but that's due to the lack of support, not the lack of another gender. While the worst thing children of homosexual parents have to contend with is intolerance from society, which requires society to change, not the parents.

I agree to most of what you say here, and the entity of my disagreement is not significant enough to warrant steering further from the core subject; subject where my objection to the inherent inequality of homosexual marriage, I notice, has not been challenged yet.