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

[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.

 

[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.