?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Zer Netmouse
May 6th, 2005
06:52 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
On Card and Homosexuality
brendand's comments On a footnote to an essay that Homosexuality is Sinful (and Homosexuals Hypocritical), by Orson Scott Card should be widely read.

The concept that liberals are narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionists who can't tolerate other opinions is getting all too much play these days.

Brendan, I suggest you send your comments directly to Mr. Card. There's a form on Hatrack River

(9 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
(Deleted comment)
From:tlatoani
Date:May 6th, 2005 06:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
Brendan's comments are great, but I don't think there's any point in trying to communicate with Card.
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:May 6th, 2005 07:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I've met Card and he's a smart, interesting person who might well appreciate hearing the sort of things Brendan says.

I think the abandonment of dialogue in this country is a major problem. Don't shout in a vaccuum, speak to people.
[User Picture]
From:matt_arnold
Date:May 6th, 2005 06:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
Brendan, have you read the two essays?
Here is the essay he posted to a Mormon website.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Then there is the one written from a more secular perspective.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
In this editorial, our ability to live fulfilled lives is not crushed beneath the heel of divine authority, but beneath the heel of a supposed moral obligation to be parents.

The most interesting thing about this second essay is that he comes right out and admits that marriage is preferential treatment granted by the government to relationships that it approves of.
[User Picture]
From:bjorng
Date:May 6th, 2005 05:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
He had me in the first piece, until he started talking about "the polity". I think that, if the laws are changing, then "the polity" must be behind said changes. The rest of his argument on that front is progressively weaker.

The second article lost me right away. Maybe it's just the "for the children" thing. In any case, I couldn't get behind it. If we want to do something "for the children", maybe we should first work on all the shitty role models in two-parent families already out there, rather than worrying about the tiny percentage of LGBT parents, who (if they're ambitious enough to raise kids) will probably provide better role models to their kids, regardless of their "non-traditional" family unit.
From:yuggoth
Date:May 6th, 2005 06:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Y'know, I haven't read the essay, but I wonder if his problem is really with the liberal narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionists, and not so much with 'homosexuality' as a concept. I'm getting tired of hearing about the reactionist liberals myself, and unfortunately the entire party now tends to be associated with Michael Moore-ish activities. There is a trend now in the liberal agenda toward exactly the kind of anti-diversity in thought that Card complains about in his essay. Like any other trend, that does not mean that every liberal does not desire diversity of opinion, rather the party as a whole is showing signs of inflexibility. What's more, poor behavior reflects badly on the entire party, and unfortunately it is rampant.
I consider myself a moderate liberal, but the liberal party is really starting to piss me off.
[User Picture]
From:netmouse
Date:May 6th, 2005 07:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
But that's just the thing - poor behavior on the part of liberals is overwhelmingly outnumbered by instance of fine, reasonable behavior - which of course doesn't get covered by the press. Poor behavior isn't *rampant* - it's exceptional. What the party hasn't mastered is a way to react to that behavior or to counter the right-wing description of it.

I really don't hold the Democratic party responsible for the behavior of unruly individuals who have just reached their limit in terms of tolerating Ann Coulter. Then again, I don't think Ann Coulter should be tolerated - I think she should be lambasted and disagreed with every time she says something erroneous or misleading, which is ALL THE TIME, and I think people should protest any media outlet that carries her voice. -Not because she doesn't have the right to speak her piece, but because she doesn't have the right to pretend to be a reasoned commentator and I don't think she has any right to have the influential position that she obviously does.
From:yuggoth
Date:May 6th, 2005 08:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, whether that kind of bad behavior is everywhere or if it's just the media playing it up, it does not really matter because it fails to make any sort of point anyway. He did not respond with well-reasoned counter-arguments, he acted like a moron and got hauled away so he could make headlines. Those kinds of activities give the conservative party strength, because, whether it's an extreme expression or more of what's becoming the norm (and I still think it's more the latter than the former), it's still "them not us."

I'm not sure what can give someone the right to be influential other than the fact that they are influential. Power is not based on one's objective "correctness".
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:matt_arnold
Date:May 6th, 2005 07:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Liberal and conservative are entirely subjective measures. If not, then what are they to the left and right of? Me? You? Everyone is a centrist when measured against their own internal reference point of what they consider to be correct.
From:yuggoth
Date:May 6th, 2005 08:05 am (UTC)
(Link)
Actually I meant "liberals" in general, which means I should not really have used "party", but it's a Friday and I feel like partying.
Netmouse on the web Powered by LiveJournal.com