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

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

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.

Hi flr2a3n4k5,

I know this is not the issue, this is very clear; but is still indirectly related to our topic because redefining marriage the way SSM supporters would like to, generates an inconsistency that calls this subject in.
To draw a parallel, I am not talking about the problem of infertility neither; but someone else here has - correctly - pointed out that infertyle married couple are an inconsistency to the concept of marriage being related to procreation.

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.

No, this would not be a correct deduction - because not all benefits provided to couples raising children should necessarily come from marriage.
If A -> B, and C -> B, not all C are necessarily A - this is a textbook example of False Syllogism.

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.

If Card REALLY proposes death penalty for SUSPICION of being gay I would agree with you regardless of my opposition to same-sex marriage; I am, however, kind-of skeptical about this claim - although I will gladly inspect any evidence about this very, very serious accusation.

Peace.

 

[Animyr]

I think that religion does not enter the picture here.

Since it's one of the foremost cultural drives behind the conviction that marriage and sex should be about procreation alone, I find that doubtful. It's certainty a motivation for Card.

I believe that you 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.

So give the benefits and privileges to people raising or caring for children, and leave marriage or sexuality out of it. Also remember that some of the benefits we give to the married are inspired by cultural preferences, prejudices or assumptions that say that people who have children should/must be be married, and vice versa. But not all of us subscribe to such values(in fact, I'd say most of us don't).

As for marriage itself, is there a requirement for all married couples to have children in order to stay married? No? Then having children is not a requirement for marriage, (and when was it ever? Encouraged, perhaps, but mandatory?)

Do you think there should be such a rule? If so, then straight/infertile people getting married for love alone should be treated the same way as gay people wishing to get married for the same reason. And if not, then what's the problem?

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 I ask you again; how would gay marriage stop the boatloads of horny straight people from doing just that? I should also note that marriage rates are falling in countries like the US (where having children is not nor has ever been a requirement for staying married), but population growth is either holding steady or still rising, so what makes you think that marriage is required for effective reproduction again? You could argue about social stability about having or raising children out of wedlock,but that's a separate issue.

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?"

Ah, the whole slippery slope argument. "Well, then we'll have to allow everything to get married!" Firstly, marriage is traditionally held to be between a consenting adult man and woman; gay marriage just takes out the gender specification. So let's go down the line; I'll also list some things you didn't mention, but that people often do in these cases;

Blood relatives--inbreeding. And in parent/child cases, pedophilia/exploitation--double whammy. I should note that, at least in the US, marrying your cousin is legal (and actually not too bad from a genetic standpoint, as long as it doesn't happen repeatedly over multiple generations)

Children--can't give consent, higher chance of physical harm

Animals--can't give consent, diseases

Inanimate objects/corpses--can't give consent. You might love it, but the reverse is certainly not true.

Singles: do you mean getting married with yourself? If so, please stop trolling me.

Polygamy; a question I've asked myself before. Personally, I don't see any inherent problem with polygamy, at least on a case by case level. If three consenting adults what to live out in the woods together, no skin off my back. Personally, my problem with polygamy on a social, widespread level is that it generally encourages, reinforces, or is the result of gender inequality (typically against women). Plus, if marriage with one person at a time is messy enough, I hardly see how adding a second person will improve it. But no, I don't see allowing polygamy as an end all "no we can't go there!" place you seem to think it is.

At any rate, I'm wondering why YOU oppose polygamy. You thus far have defined marriage as being about having children; what arrangement is better suited for that then polygamy? Some cultures who have it endorse it specifically for the reason of breeding and expanding the population, and force or obligate women, regardless of their wishes, into such marriages so they can be good breeders for the state/the lord/society.

To sum it up, the way I see it, you need to do three main things;

Show how gay marriage hurts straight marriage (in a way only gay marriage does)

Show how straight marriage is the only good way to reproduction

Show why reproduction is so important that nobody who is capable of it should be exempt from doing it(and if people can be exempt, why not homosexuals? They're not so numerous and wouldn't they just have an increased chance of having homosexual children anyway?)

So far as I can tell, you haven't done any of this yet, only vaguely asserted it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ya know I throw the GLADD thing in there just because I don't happen to like GLADD.

Oh. Intellectual dishonesty because of a personal grudge. I see.

So the Anti-Gay lobbyist is bad just because he's anti-gay...

There are a ton of anti-gay 'lobbyists' less odious than this guy. But please, continue the string of dishonesty by pretending it's simply because he's anti-gay.

I suppose it is pretty bad to want to line the pockets of a person who will actively politically campaign against one's lifestyle.

Yeah, it's not a lifestyle.

However you bring up Prop 8, and no. I'm sorry buddy, Card may of brought that one to the dance but it only passed by Californian vote. That's on California not Card.

Right, campaigning has absolutely no impact. And California proponents didn't express regret or anything after the fact. And there wasn't any issue called into play over NOM's involvement.

Come now. Stop being disingenuous. Or is this the level of discourse I can expect?

 

[Something Amyss]

Hence the part of my post where I said.

It was germane, so I said it.

But does it matter if he's more visible or not?

If he wasn't as visible, he wouldn't be as big a threat, for one. I'd say that makes a difference. I also think it's completely unreasonable to expect people to ferret out "secret homophobes" or whatever, which seems to be where you were going. Reducto ad absurdum.

I've never heard of them, what electronics companies are being boycotted because of the political beliefs of their owners?

Do your own homework. You were the one who went in claiming this didn't happen to try and falsely assert that there some some level of difference in this case. This isn't even the first big boycott to make news recently. Seriously, though, maybe next time don't go with assumptions for the sake of convenience.

Again, I'm not talking about boycotting a product because you don't like how it's made, or anything to do with the product specifically.

Nor am I.

Or maybe that's why people took issue with places like Chick Fil-A. Because they were made from homophobic chickens.


2. Because the idea of it sounds completely absurd, and unlike the behavior of any mentally sound human being. Are you honestly telling me that when you buy shoes you do background research on the owners of the shoe company to make sure none of them are homophobes?[/quote]

Yes, when you reduce an argument to its most absurd, it sounds completely absurd. But then, that's dishonest.

And you should have added reason 3.

3. Ponies.

You're taking something you don't like and trying to argue it at its most extreme to discredit is. Dishonest, dude.

Can you honestly assure me that none of the products you've ever bought have earned revenue for someone who opposes gay marriage?

I can't. I also can't assure you that none of my relatives aren't secretly homophobes or that I've never knowingly met with a communist. But then, I can't prove a universal negative and that's silly to begin with. Can you prove you're not TEH DEVUL??????

No, of course, not, but that would also be a bad argument.

If so then I concede this point, and highly recommend that you get some help.

No need for personal shots.

And I think it's a very good assumption, and one I still stand by for the reasons explained above.

So because ponies, then? I mean, you could have done some research before making a statement and using it out of convenience, but apparently, it's reasonable to take a lack of experience with something and use that as proof that it doesn't exist.

This is the sort of circular logic used by a lot of the commie hunts in the McCarthy era. I mean, if you're cool with that, fine. But I expect you to ask me stuff like when I stopped beating my wife.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Ya know I throw the GLADD thing in there just because I don't happen to like GLADD.

Oh. Intellectual dishonesty because of a personal grudge. I see.

So the Anti-Gay lobbyist is bad just because he's anti-gay...

There are a ton of anti-gay 'lobbyists' less odious than this guy. But please, continue the string of dishonesty by pretending it's simply because he's anti-gay.

I suppose it is pretty bad to want to line the pockets of a person who will actively politically campaign against one's lifestyle.

Yeah, it's not a lifestyle.

However you bring up Prop 8, and no. I'm sorry buddy, Card may of brought that one to the dance but it only passed by Californian vote. That's on California not Card.

Right, campaigning has absolutely no impact. And California proponents didn't express regret or anything after the fact. And there wasn't any issue called into play over NOM's involvement.

Come now. Stop being disingenuous. Or is this the level of discourse I can expect?

Nonsense Zach, I'm always sincere.

My criticism of GLADD are true. The Ellis thing backed up by Tweets by the author himself. The Jay and Silent Bob thing was on one of Malcolm Ingram's BLOWHARD podcasts. Either are valid reasons to dislike the organization, and I'll take potshots at it when I can. Just like I take potshots at Feminism for still harboring Anti-Transgender bias amongst the older generation.

lifestyle. genetics. People like to fuck, same thing. It's really rather arbitray if it's a choice or not isn't it? I'd also rather it be a choice, just the same. Theres nothing wrong with it, but "a man chooses, a slave obeys" blah blah blah

are you seriously proposing Card and his group of facist somehow have the power to brainwash the entire state of California with their ads? Don't be ridiculous. Unless we're just going to assume people are moron inherently and believe anything the idiot box says.

Fact is I made the topic because people made it out to seem like he was Hitler II, when really all I see is the ramblings of a man trying to rationalize his bigotry. Oh dear, he wrote an anti-gay article in a MORMON MAGAZINE... Is that really the same as Westboro Baptist Church protesting the funeral of Matthew Sheppard? The guy holds a backwards view of the world, all I'm saying is I was expecting something more extreme then ramblings on a page.

 

[Olas]

But does it matter if he's more visible or not?

If he wasn't as visible, he wouldn't be as big a threat, for one. I'd say that makes a difference. I also think it's completely unreasonable to expect people to ferret out "secret homophobes" or whatever, which seems to be where you were going. Reducto ad absurdum.

Ferret out secret homophobes? What? Are you sure you're replying to the right comment?

Anyway, if being more visible somehow makes him a bigger "threat", then the people making a huge fuss about him on the internet are increasing his threat the most. I didn't even know who he was until this controversy started. Good job guys.

I've never heard of them, what electronics companies are being boycotted because of the political beliefs of their owners?

Do your own homework. You were the one who went in claiming this didn't happen to try and falsely assert that there some some level of difference in this case. This isn't even the first big boycott to make news recently. Seriously, though, maybe next time don't go with assumptions for the sake of convenience.

Seriously? So I'm supposed to be doing research on a bunch of organizations that I've never heard of? Just how much searching do I have to do before I'm allowed to conclude that there aren't any such companies? You do realize that you're asking me to prove a negative right?

Oh well, I guess I can't win this argument since you aren't required to provide evidence to support your own assertions.

Again, I'm not talking about boycotting a product because you don't like how it's made, or anything to do with the product specifically.

Nor am I.

Or maybe that's why people took issue with places like Chick Fil-A. Because they were made from homophobic chickens.

Okay, I'll grant you Chick Fil-A is one other example of people making a big fuss over a product because of the homophobia of its creators. Of course people still only reacted to it because it was covered by news outlets and caused a controversy; chances are they wouldn't have even known otherwise, but it still counts for what I was saying at the time.

2. Because the idea of it sounds completely absurd, and unlike the behavior of any mentally sound human being. Are you honestly telling me that when you buy shoes you do background research on the owners of the shoe company to make sure none of them are homophobes?

Yes, when you reduce an argument to its most absurd, it sounds completely absurd. But then, that's dishonest.

How have I "reduced an argument to its most absurd"?

So refusing to see a movie because someone involved with its creation had homophobic beliefs is perfectly normal, but refusing to buy shoes because someone involved with its creation had homophobic beliefs is absurd? Okay, I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.

And you should have added reason 3.

3. Ponies.

...um, I guess that makes about as much sense as ferrets.

Can you honestly assure me that none of the products you've ever bought have earned revenue for someone who opposes gay marriage?

I can't. I also can't assure you that none of my relatives aren't secretly homophobes or that I've never knowingly met with a communist. But then, I can't prove a universal negative and that's silly to begin with. Can you prove you're not TEH DEVUL??????

No, of course, not, but that would also be a bad argument.

When did I ask you to prove a universal negative? I didn't. I asked if you check to make sure each product you buy is not created by outspoken homophobes. That's not impossible to do. You could do that if you were willing to.

When people are concerned about some aspect of the products they buy, they typically do research on the products first. If you're concerned about violence in third world countries over conflict minerals, you make sure that the jewelry you buy isn't helping to fund it. If you don't care enough to do that it's hard to make the case that you're truly interested in that cause.

The only difference is violence minerals are something I could actually understand people caring about.

And I think it's a very good assumption, and one I still stand by for the reasons explained above.

So because ponies, then?

What's with you and ponies?

I mean, you could have done some research before making a statement and using it out of convenience, but apparently, it's reasonable to take a lack of experience with something and use that as proof that it doesn't exist.

Seriously?

So you're saying I'm suppose to do RESEARCH on whether the people boycotting this movie do research to find out if the other products they buy are in some way tied to outspoken homophobes?

??????????????????????????????????

Do you really think that information is available somewhere? Do you think somewhere online there's a statistic saying what percentage of people check to see if the products they buy are tied to homophobes before buying them? I didn't make that assumption out of convenience, I made it out of necessity, just like how you assume that I'm not 'TEH DEVUL'.

It wasn't even an important point in and of itself, it was a rhetorical question meant to highlight an absurdity. If you somehow proved that everyone involved in this boycott actually checks to make sure that every product they buy isn't connected to homophobes, it still wouldn't change the fact that it's absurd to do so, which was my point.

This is the sort of circular logic used by a lot of the commie hunts in the McCarthy era. I mean, if you're cool with that, fine. But I expect you to ask me stuff like when I stopped beating my wife.

.....ummm

Again, like with the ferrets and the ponies I'm just going to assume that you typed that in by mistake or something.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

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.

Hi Char-Nobyl,

point taken. Of course I meant to apply both objectives, next time I'll remember my AND operator!

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?

No, of course not. It would be a case of doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
In fact, there is a lot of bigotry on both sides of the fence on this topic - no wonder this subject is so polarizing.

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

They do it for a number of reasons, some of which based on good intentions. This doesn't change that many - not all - act with irrational intolerance toward the opposite camp.

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.

Thank you for those links - I was aware of both the original claim and the rectification, and of course I disagree about violent insurrection. If you could link to the rest, I will read it.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Hi flr2a3n4k5,

I know this is not the issue, this is very clear; but is still indirectly related to our topic because redefining marriage the way SSM supporters would like to, generates an inconsistency that calls this subject in.
To draw a parallel, I am not talking about the problem of infertility neither; but someone else here has - correctly - pointed out that infertyle married couple are an inconsistency to the concept of marriage being related to procreation.

There is no inconsistency if you consider that banning same-sex marriage is a form of gender discrimination, cause marriage is still a contract with two people.

No, this would not be a correct deduction - because not all benefits provided to couples raising children should necessarily come from marriage.
If A -> B, and C -> B, not all C are necessarily A - this is a textbook example of False Syllogism.

That's funny, cause that's not how people actually assess arguments. Not to say that syllogisms can't be false, but they are generally assessed on a scale of support from "none" to "moderate" to "deductively valid."

A syllogism lacks support when there are counter-examples to the syllogism.

Now that we are both on equal footing with our understanding of arguments; please list counter-examples to this syllogism, cause as it stands, rather than just saying it's "false." I think it's a strong argument.

If Card REALLY proposes death penalty for SUSPICION of being gay I would agree with you regardless of my opposition to same-sex marriage; I am, however, kind-of skeptical about this claim - although I will gladly inspect any evidence about this very, very serious accusation.

Peace.

Here's the deal: Orson Scott Card, on the board and huge donor to the National Organization for Marriage (common knowledge). Now NOM often partners up with the Family Research Council on a lot of poltical events. The same FRC that is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and spent $25k lobbying against the bill that would condemn the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council). Which is a bill you may have heard about because it doles out life imprisonments and death sentences to homosexuals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_gays_bill)

Now, that may not be enough of a connection for you, but it damn well is for me. The man hobknobs with the sort of people who miss the "good old days" when people were afraid to talk about sex.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

While procreation is necessary for the continuation of humanity as a whole, it's not really necessary for every human possible to procreate as much as they can. There will always be plenty of heterosexuals procreating more than they need to and plenty of foster kids in need of homes that homosexuals could happily provide.

Hi LifeCharacter,
in a way this is true - but to me, it sounds to a lot to the tunes of "can't someone else do it". Those who do procreate deserve recognition compared who those who don't, especially if those who could choose not to.

And, once again, procreation stopped being the exclusive domain of a heterosexual man and woman with the advent of modern science. Unless the only procreation you recognize is when a man sticks his dick in a vagina, sperm donation, surrogacy, invitro, and the potential for IPS cells in the future mean that homosexuals, or single people, are more than capable of procreating. As such, marriage requiring some form of natural procreation is a rather ridiculous argument, in that there is fundamentally no difference between that and what is available to homosexuals at this very moment other than one requiring a bit more paperwork and decision making.

There is a difference - and that is that in a natural marriage the spouses are also the parents. Even without going through the significant moral debate around renting another woman's body or potentially killing other human beings at embryo stage, you still are in a situation where one person has a child with someone but lives with someone else - this is essentally a form of adoption.

Procreation doesn't has to be natural, but it's preferrable if children are raised by their parents; if science will reach a stage where sperm or eggs can be synthesized though the DNA of someone of the opposite sex without harming someone else's life, then yes, this opposition will drop.
I am not saying that single parents with one or more partners don't deserve any credit, but this has nothing to do with marriage as it was always intended and defined - outside of the debate about the rights of those persons, I don't see why it should still be called marriage.

Wasn't the core of your argument that of procreation, that thing homosexuals are very capable of achieving? I feel like I've challenged that...

Yes, that's one side; the other side is the inconsistency of providing economic and administrative advantages to two persons without any specific requirement other than, I suppose, loving each other - but at the same time restricting it to just two persons (who cannot be blood relatives).
If marriage is being arbitrarily redefined to remove the focus on procreation, why limit it to two people? Or why esclude relatives at this point, since the practical reason of prohibition of such marriages is specifically related to the genetics problem that incurs in greater percentage in children of people with too much similar DNA.
Hell, at this point I might as well marry my grandmother, to get part of her pension when she dies, or my son, to simplify the passage of heritage when it will be my time to kick the bucket.

If you are a truly egalitarian society, you must provide all citizens with the same rights in face of the same conditions. This redefinition is inherently unfair by introducing inequalities with the pretext of removing non-existing ones.