6 ms·

The difference here, is that it's not the 1800s, and OSC continues to not just hold, but evangelize his hateful positions. See: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/c

The difference here, is that it's not the 1800s, and OSC continues to not just hold, but evangelize his hateful positions. See: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html for one of the reasons people find him repellent. Choice quote (after he had a chance to reflect on the response to his essay): "...it has become clearer and clearer to me, since writing this essay, that gay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable "alternative lifestyle." It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of "no-fault" divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way. Having already lost control of the car, we now find the gay activists screaming at us to speed up as we drive headlong toward the cliff."

ribs 13y ago
It's just a fact that even people with repugnant beliefs about certain classes of people can still make complete sense in other domains.
- Udo 13y ago
  Nobody disputes that. The question is, I believe, if we should enable them and elevate them. Giving Card a platform and indulging him validates his entire personal concept, not just the good parts. It's not only a matter of giving credit, it's about choosing where your content comes from. This person is still alive and relevant and subject to social acceptance. And even with dead people, we are reluctant to cite them if they have a bad reputation - it's only that we make certain historical allowances based on the perceived historical distance to us. Especially in this day and age, it's easy to find alternative authors on pretty much any subject who convey the same ideas without the amoral baggage. Let's recognize them instead. Do you think this essay contains unique insights? No way. It's here because it's written by Orson Scott Card.
  - nashashmi 13y ago
    You know if we practiced the same methodology a long time back, many prominent people may never have gained credence even if they came up with some amazing stuff simply because they were gay. Case in point: Alan Turing.
    - Udo 13y ago
      You could argue that "we" always practiced the methodology of penalizing people with beliefs that were perceived as abnormal. Case in point: Alan Turing. However, this is not the level I want this considered at. Instead, I invite you to look at what you're comparing here. There is OSC's philosophy of hatred on one side, and Alan Turing's sexuality on the other (which was never about harming anyone and hence could always be considered ethically neutral). You can't meaningfully argue that the two are similar. Yes, they share the trait of being socially unaccepted at the time, but that's also where the similarities end. I'm not proposing we shun people because their beliefs are unpopular. I'm talking about making a choice not to elevate people who are unethical.
      - adamnemecek 13y ago
        You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?
        Udo 13y ago
        > What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)? First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?
        xmonkee 13y ago
nashashmi 13y ago
How is that wrong again?! It is true that they are trying to gain legitimacy. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance. The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. Now we have not just reached giving gays equal treatment but making changes to accommodate a different lifestyle. The second point OSC makes is sourced in a discomfort from social disruption. There is a tendency to blame many current state of affairs on the gay movement. I think in summary we should all reflect on the amount of insight this guy has and the capabilities of prediction he possesses. Just by simply observing things, he makes some deep accurate predictions that are very remote in the future. The article you linked to seems to be written in 1990.
- sanoli 13y ago
  Is this different from, say, the black movement? What if there were no longer segregated schools and bathrooms, but african-americans were prohibited to adopt children and black history were not allowed to be taught in schools? edit: I'm not from the U.S. so I don't know everything as far as minority rights go over there. In my country there are laws agains racism, and they're trying to pass anti-homophobia laws too. I do have a problem with both of these, though, as anybody expressing a racist opinion can be simply jailed without bail. I find the U.S. stance on free speech much more... how do I put it... free?
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    In the US, it boils down to: you are free to be as much as a bigot as you like in your personal life (there are some special laws about renting and employment) but as long as you are not combining your bigotry with another crime (assault, harassment) you can let your hate flag fly. I think this helps society blow of some of its racism and bigotry in a safer way than just repressing it, but it's an ongoing struggle between too much freedom and too little, like everything else in America.
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2 https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2
127 13y ago
This is not a hateful position. It is a political position and a stance of how society should operate. I see no gay hatred there. Simply the strong need for family and society building. Just because you can't understand his reasons and emotionally react to some of his opinions does not a bigot make.
- daliusd 13y ago
  Yes, it is stupid, ignorant and unscientific, but not hateful. It might be used by people with hateful intentions however. "Argument from authority" is logical fallacy but a lot of people are still tricked by it.
  - speeder 13y ago
    We will see how unscientific it is in 50 years more or less...
    - daliusd 13y ago
      Let's define what's scientific, which parts of that writing can be considered scientific by that definition and return in 50 years here. Really. I can add that to my TODO list :) Chances that I will be still alive are not very high but I still have those chances. I want to define what's scientific because after 50 years in pessimistic scenario religion can be considered scientific and pope might be The Chief Scientist.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  If he's so concerned about the fabric of society and the family why doesn't he write about the evils of divorce? The divorce rate is like 50%, whereas gayness hovers around 5% depending on who you ask. Somehow the lack of throbbing, purple-veined meatsicks must render it less compelling. EDIT: withdrawing the above childishness, turns out he does write extensively about divorce.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    He has written about the evils of divorce. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html A quick search suggests he regularly incorporates criticism of divorce into his other writings. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html

ribs 13y ago

It's just a fact that even people with repugnant beliefs about certain classes of people can still make complete sense in other domains.

Udo 13y ago
Nobody disputes that. The question is, I believe, if we should enable them and elevate them. Giving Card a platform and indulging him validates his entire personal concept, not just the good parts. It's not only a matter of giving credit, it's about choosing where your content comes from. This person is still alive and relevant and subject to social acceptance. And even with dead people, we are reluctant to cite them if they have a bad reputation - it's only that we make certain historical allowances based on the perceived historical distance to us. Especially in this day and age, it's easy to find alternative authors on pretty much any subject who convey the same ideas without the amoral baggage. Let's recognize them instead. Do you think this essay contains unique insights? No way. It's here because it's written by Orson Scott Card.
- nashashmi 13y ago
  You know if we practiced the same methodology a long time back, many prominent people may never have gained credence even if they came up with some amazing stuff simply because they were gay. Case in point: Alan Turing.
  - Udo 13y ago
    You could argue that "we" always practiced the methodology of penalizing people with beliefs that were perceived as abnormal. Case in point: Alan Turing. However, this is not the level I want this considered at. Instead, I invite you to look at what you're comparing here. There is OSC's philosophy of hatred on one side, and Alan Turing's sexuality on the other (which was never about harming anyone and hence could always be considered ethically neutral). You can't meaningfully argue that the two are similar. Yes, they share the trait of being socially unaccepted at the time, but that's also where the similarities end. I'm not proposing we shun people because their beliefs are unpopular. I'm talking about making a choice not to elevate people who are unethical.
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?
      - Udo 13y ago
        > What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)? First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?
        xmonkee 13y ago

nashashmi 13y ago

How is that wrong again?! It is true that they are trying to gain legitimacy. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance. The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. Now we have not just reached giving gays equal treatment but making changes to accommodate a different lifestyle. The second point OSC makes is sourced in a discomfort from social disruption. There is a tendency to blame many current state of affairs on the gay movement. I think in summary we should all reflect on the amount of insight this guy has and the capabilities of prediction he possesses. Just by simply observing things, he makes some deep accurate predictions that are very remote in the future. The article you linked to seems to be written in 1990.

sanoli 13y ago
Is this different from, say, the black movement? What if there were no longer segregated schools and bathrooms, but african-americans were prohibited to adopt children and black history were not allowed to be taught in schools? edit: I'm not from the U.S. so I don't know everything as far as minority rights go over there. In my country there are laws agains racism, and they're trying to pass anti-homophobia laws too. I do have a problem with both of these, though, as anybody expressing a racist opinion can be simply jailed without bail. I find the U.S. stance on free speech much more... how do I put it... free?
- wavefunction 13y ago
  In the US, it boils down to: you are free to be as much as a bigot as you like in your personal life (there are some special laws about renting and employment) but as long as you are not combining your bigotry with another crime (assault, harassment) you can let your hate flag fly. I think this helps society blow of some of its racism and bigotry in a safer way than just repressing it, but it's an ongoing struggle between too much freedom and too little, like everything else in America.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2 https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2

127 13y ago

This is not a hateful position. It is a political position and a stance of how society should operate. I see no gay hatred there. Simply the strong need for family and society building. Just because you can't understand his reasons and emotionally react to some of his opinions does not a bigot make.

daliusd 13y ago
Yes, it is stupid, ignorant and unscientific, but not hateful. It might be used by people with hateful intentions however. "Argument from authority" is logical fallacy but a lot of people are still tricked by it.
- speeder 13y ago
  We will see how unscientific it is in 50 years more or less...
  - daliusd 13y ago
    Let's define what's scientific, which parts of that writing can be considered scientific by that definition and return in 50 years here. Really. I can add that to my TODO list :) Chances that I will be still alive are not very high but I still have those chances. I want to define what's scientific because after 50 years in pessimistic scenario religion can be considered scientific and pope might be The Chief Scientist.
JonnieCache 13y ago
If he's so concerned about the fabric of society and the family why doesn't he write about the evils of divorce? The divorce rate is like 50%, whereas gayness hovers around 5% depending on who you ask. Somehow the lack of throbbing, purple-veined meatsicks must render it less compelling. EDIT: withdrawing the above childishness, turns out he does write extensively about divorce.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  He has written about the evils of divorce. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html A quick search suggests he regularly incorporates criticism of divorce into his other writings. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html