Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GRENADE! or LGBT Boycott of "Ender's Game" (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: GRENADE! or LGBT Boycott of "Ender's Game"
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I'm not a member of the LGBT community; I just support equal rights.

My bad. I must have thought you were based on something I barely remembered years ago.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I'm not a member of the LGBT community; I just support equal rights.

My bad. I must have thought you were based on something I barely remembered years ago.
Its all right; many people that I love are members of that community, so it still feels very personal (which no doubt comes across in how I write about the issue).
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for admitting that the issue at play here is Card's current support for the marriage preservation movement, and not for some statement made back in the 1980s.


How is it "Admitting" anything to point out that water is wet? The statement from the 80's was just a clear and particularly reprehensible example quote, it's not intended to be the entire argument.

quote:
But you're naive if you think it's an ethical concern about dollars going to support NOM. If that were so, then why not out and say it?
They mention his affiliation with NOM at the top of the page. Again, why explain to the people that they'd expect to be at all sympathetic to their point that water is wet? They have enough respect for the people they're talking to to think that they can make the basic connection between being an activist and putting money that he earns into that activism.

quote:
They aren't mentioning NOM *yet* because they want to pretend at this stage in the game that this attack is not about Same-sex marriage. That way when SSM finally gets mentioned, it comes into a pattern of already established homophobia.
Except they lead off with a mention of NOM as explicit evidence of homophobic activism on his part.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for admitting that the issue at play here is Card's current support for the marriage preservation movement, and not for some statement made back in the 1980s.


How is it "Admitting" anything to point out that water is wet?

Pyr, you've refused to concede propositions that were more obviously universally true than water being wet. So I thank you for conceding the bloody obvious. All add you to the short list of SSM proponents on this forum capable of making such a leap.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"OSC has organized lobbying efforts to deny gay couples the right to marry"

Again, I challenge you to provide a single coherent definition of the verb "TO MARRY" under which your statement is not a plain falsehood.


I decline! [Razz]

I'm pretty sure we both know each other's positions regarding the semantics here. I've failed to convince you, and you've failed to convince me. So I'll continue to use language that makes sense to me, with your objection noted.

quote:
The truth of the matter is that OSC was a part of organized lobbying efforts to prevent same sex partnerships from being called marriage by the government.
And to prevent Same Sex Civil Unions, too. Hard to argue its about the word if they oppose ssus too.

And yes, we are all horrified at the suggestion that people be sent to prison for having gay relationships. My only question there is, does OSC still believe that, or not? It would be pretty easy to say "that was 35 years ago, I no longer believe that, and I apologize, etc." Actually, that would probably take a lot of the wind out of the opposition's sails. Since *they* have referenced that passage very prominently, and since he responded to them specifically, I find it unfortunate that he didn't offer any kind of retraction there.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[qb] "OSC has organized lobbying efforts to deny gay couples the right to marry"

Again, I challenge you to provide a single coherent definition of the verb "TO MARRY" under which your statement is not a plain falsehood.


I decline! [Razz]

I'm pretty sure we both know each other's positions regarding the semantics here. /QB]

IIRC your position is to avoid discussion of whether your statement is consistent with itself. [Frown] That's not an issue that depends on "semantics" but rather an issue of consistency. When you say that I know what you mean, what I believe is that you mean to avoid the issue. And I mean to challenge it as false whenever it is made. If what he was doing was so evil, one would not need to mischaracterize it to demonstrate that it was evil.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Challenge it all you want. I think the problem is most of us aren't sure we understand your argument because of how we see the language being used in every day life. When we do believe we understand your argument, we reject it.

I thought I came close to wrapping my head around it a few times but it's still pretty damn murky and I don't think anyone has much emotional capital they are willing to invest in that particular "debate".

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The inconsistency you insist exists in fact depends on a circular argument. It's in fact entirely a semantic argument (and a painfully obtuse one). I think you return to it so often because the central premise is also the conclusion to which you are arguing.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure that word premise means what you think it means.

I've argued here that the inability to articulate that accusation with any degree of accuracy, demonstrates that it's a false accusation.

In any event, why do you care if it's a false accusation, since you've stated that your purpose is justice for same-sex couples, not demonizing those who want to protect a gendered marriage ideal?

If Justice is really what is at stake, then articulate the argument in terms of justice, rather than making unsupportable and false statements about what your opponents are doing.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I care because it's not a false accusation or a demonization of OSC. It's a statement of fact, and your insistence that it's nonsensical is arguing from your (semantic) conclusion.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I care because it's not a false accusation or a demonization of OSC. It's a statement of fact, and your insistence that it's nonsensical is arguing from your (semantic) conclusion.

This can stand in for my response as well. I have three rather close friends who are married now, two in Vermont, one in California, who wouldn't have been able to get married if OSC (and others) had gotten their way. Arguments that 1. they could always have chosen to marry people of the opposite gender, or 2. they could have "gotten married" without any sort of legal dimension; those arguments are semantic dodges to a very obvious human issue. I'm willing to concede that you (Pete) find the semantic issue important, but I'm frankly contemptuous of the idea that even the best anti-ssm arguments I've heard could somehow prevent these friends of mine (and millions of others) from taking the life-paths that they have chosen. Yes, thats how far I am from being convinced that the "traditional definition" arguments are at all valid.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I care because it's not a false accusation or a demonization of OSC. It's a statement of fact, and your insistence that it's nonsensical is arguing from your (semantic) conclusion.

It may or may not be a statement of fact, depending on whether OSC has acted to enforce his 1980s opinion, which actually COULD be honestly said to restrict gays from marrying without being duplicitous or inconsistent about what marriage meant.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"wouldn't have been able to get married "

By any definition of marriage, they either aren't married still, or they could have been married without regard to what Card tried to do. I do not think that anyone is using any definition of marriage whereby one could honestly say that the couple are married now but could not have been if Card's act had passed. If you ever stop ducking the question, I'll be interested to hear your argument.

[ July 18, 2013, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
*sigh*

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

I am pro civil union. All the same privileges as marriage, without forcing a redefinition.

Traditional marriage and SSM have similar goals, but not identical. Being pro civil union does not equal anti-LGBT.

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
*sigh*

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

I am pro civil union. All the same privileges as marriage, without forcing a redefinition.

Traditional marriage and SSM have similar goals, but not identical. Being pro civil union does not equal anti-LGBT.

That's great. If you hadn't been in a tiny minority of the anti-ssm movement from the beginning, we might have tried same sex unions as a nation. But every state that enacted bans on same sex marriage *also* banned same sex unions. The movement, such as it was, was very much acting against the legitimate interests of the LGBT community. NOM, the organization OSC lobbies through, opposed same sex union efforts as well as same sex marriage initiatives. That *is* anti-LGBT, in effect if nothing else (though his comments indicate that, for him, there is plenty of "else").
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
Being pro civil union does not equal anti-LGBT.

By denying a group of people equality under the law which is a basic constitutional right, individuals who are pro-civil union anti-SSM are open to characterizations of bigotry and homophobia. I advise any such individuals to not have a "soapbox" any larger then the common man/woman or you will be subject to boycotting.

BEWARE HOMOPHOBES!!!

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
Being pro civil union does not equal anti-LGBT.

By denying a group of people equality under the law which is a basic constitutional right, individuals who are pro-civil union anti-SSM are open to characterizations of bigotry and homophobia. I advise any such individuals to not have a "soapbox" any larger then the common man/woman or you will be subject to boycotting.

BEWARE HOMOPHOBES!!!

I presume you are being silly to be funny... If so, it worked for me. +1

They can call me whatever. Nastiness will hurt some, but I won't retreat. Being a regular citizen, odds are I have nothing to fear.

[ July 18, 2013, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
I presume you are being silly to be funny... If so, it worked for me. +1

Double edged sword. I'm sure I offended somebody by exaggerating and misrepresenting. Mea Culpa.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I care because it's not a false accusation or a demonization of OSC. It's a statement of fact, and your insistence that it's nonsensical is arguing from your (semantic) conclusion.

It may or may not be a statement of fact, depending on whether OSC has acted to enforce his 1980s opinion, which actually COULD be honestly said to restrict gays from marrying without being duplicitous or inconsistent about what marriage meant.
It doesn't get you anywhere, rhetorically or practically, to stick to the claim that there's an inconsistency there, because it ONLY exists in your artificially restricted semantic preferences.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I say, "People I care for are married now and would not have been able to be married if the efforts of NOM etc had been successful", what I mean is that if one of them is hospitalized, the other cannot be barred from visiting, can take family medical leave to care for the sick spouse, can make emergency medical decisions. They have equal legal rights to their children. A non-citizen can gain the right to stay in this country with a spouse (yes, I do know one of these couples). And also all those other things.

I understand that there are people who care very deeply about the semantics, but I care about the outcomes. If there had ever been a national effort to provide all the protections of marriage to same-sex couples without calling it marriage, I probably would have supported that too because I personally mostly don't care about the semantics, but there wasn't.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
When I say, "People I care for are married now and would not have been able to be married if the efforts of NOM etc had been successful", what I mean is that if one of them is hospitalized, the other cannot be barred from visiting, can take family medical leave to care for the sick spouse, can make emergency medical decisions. They have equal legal rights to their children. A non-citizen can gain the right to stay in this country with a spouse (yes, I do know one of these couples). And also all those other things.

I understand that there are people who care very deeply about the semantics, but I care about the outcomes. If there had ever been a national effort to provide all the protections of marriage to same-sex couples without calling it marriage, I probably would have supported that too because I personally mostly don't care about the semantics, but there wasn't.

I made virtually the same argument to my friend last night. She was pissed: 14th Amendment, you can't have separate but equal institutions" (first year out of law school). After that I was tempted to introduce her to Pete and OA.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I care because it's not a false accusation or a demonization of OSC. It's a statement of fact, and your insistence that it's nonsensical is arguing from your (semantic) conclusion.

It may or may not be a statement of fact, depending on whether OSC has acted to enforce his 1980s opinion, which actually COULD be honestly said to restrict gays from marrying without being duplicitous or inconsistent about what marriage meant.
It doesn't get you anywhere, rhetorically or practically, to stick to the claim that there's an inconsistency there, because it ONLY exists in your artificially restricted semantic preferences.
Even the Supreme Court majority says that you're wrong, even though they upheld the conclusion that you seek. SCOTUS said clearly that the semantics are at issue, but that the state governments have always had the power to define the semantics re marriage. And they are right, which is why I've always said on this forum that DOMA was unconstitutional and that we needed a federal amendment to protect the meaning of marriage.

Tommy, tell your friend that a lawyer on Ornery says she's a twit and that a word is not an institution. The institutions involved in relevant 14th amendment caselaw such as loving v virginia universally involved physical facilities. Marriage and same-sex partnerships both have equal access to government facilities. Ergo no separation. Distinction =/= separation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tommy, tell your friend that a lawyer on Ornery says she's a twit and that a word is not an institution.
No. See, this is exactly why I didn't tell her to check out this forum.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
quote:
Tommy, tell your friend that a lawyer on Ornery says she's a twit and that a word is not an institution.
No. See, this is exactly why I didn't tell her to check out this forum.
He could have made it FAR worse... what if he had removed an "i" and added an "a" instead?? [Eek!]
Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Even the Supreme Court majority says that you're wrong, even though they upheld the conclusion that you seek. SCOTUS said clearly that the semantics are at issue..

Be more specific about how this supports your claim that Adam's statement about OSC's efforts related to gay marriage was false.

The vast majority of those who oppose same sex marriage would agree that they don't want to give gay couples the right to marry, Pete. I suspect if you asked OSC whether he wants to give gay couples the right to marry, he'd say "no". Are they guilty of making false statements about their own position?

SCOTUS may consider the semantics important as you do, but when you claim that people are making false claims when they point out that OSC and others like him don't want to give gay couples the right to marry, you're just completely wrong. The meaning is clear, and it maps to what the public debate is actually about.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What the majority decision actually said in Windsor was:
quote:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States," Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
That seems too little to justify:
quote:
Even the Supreme Court majority says that you're wrong, even though they upheld the conclusion that you seek. SCOTUS said clearly that the semantics are at issue, but that the state governments have always had the power to define the semantics re marriage.
In the majority opinion, "Subject to certain constitutional guarantees..." and "virtually exclusive province of the States..." say that what states choose to do is limited by rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution. And while future events are always slightly uncertain, many of those who opposed SSM - like OSC - have now concluded the Supreme Court will in time require every state to permit same sex couples to get married, citing one of many possible Constitutional provisions. People can say this outcome is undesirable, but it is quite another to hold this outcome is unlikely, and to my mind seems wishful thinking.

Yes, the matter could be settled otherwise at least for a time by amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual only. This has no chance of being done that I can see, and if done, would be repealed in a few years like the amendment establishing Prohibition. When SSM currently has about 60% approval in the United States, and that proportion is likely to increase rapidly, the idea that even amending the Constitution would settle the matter is not justified. As it now seems as if all of Europe and the Americas will soon recognize SSMs, the idea that the United States could remain an exception is improbable.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The vast majority of those who oppose same sex marriage would agree that they don't want to give gay couples the right to marry, Pete."

I agree that the vast majority of those who oppose ssm have not thought through what they are saying, just as the vast majority of those who support ssm.

But nearly half of ssm opponents agree with me that same-sex unions should be allowed, and I suspect that most if not all of those would agree with my statements if they had the chance to read and think about them.

A significant minority of ssm supporters in our own discussion even recognize that my semantic assessment is correct.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, the matter could be settled otherwise at least for a time by amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual only. This has no chance of being done that I can see, and if done, would be repealed in a few years like the amendment establishing Prohibition.
(am I the only one that read this and pictured gay speakeasies and lesbians running around with tommy guns?)
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, except in my picture everyone was in flapper dresses.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


But nearly half of ssm opponents agree with me that same-sex unions should be allowed, and I suspect that most if not all of those would agree with my statements if they had the chance to read and think about them.

Pete, you've probably written enough on ssm on this forum to fill a George R. R. Martin novel; I've yet to see you convince a single person that didn't already agree with you. Props for persistence, but your glasses might be a little too rose colored in this statement.

quote:

A significant minority of ssm supporters in our own discussion even recognize that my semantic assessment is correct.

What semantic assessment would that be? I've asked you, and sic-fi has too, but you are being strangely silent on the question, (while heatedly insisting that I am "lying" about OSC's actions, to boot).

Why not just make the semantic assertion, and ask for a show of hands?

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pete, you've probably written enough on ssm on this forum to fill a George R. R. Martin novel; I've yet to see you convince a single person that didn't already agree with you."

Convince them of what?

I don't think you've even read me carefully enough to be able to restate what I was trying to convince them of. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I recall at least four persons on Ornery have changed positions to say that SSUs would be an acceptable compromise. of those, two later said that they'd reverted, Ricky after a guilt trip over a gay friend, and KnightEnder after what he described as a heated conversation with his wife. [Big Grin] If nothing else, I've gotten some people to consider another point of view. I'm sorry that I've failed with you, but what you are willing or not willing to mentally contemplate is not entirely my fault, is it?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SSUs are acceptable, in theory, if they are accompanied by language and legislation that prevents them from being made lesser than marriages. Since most attempts at "protecting" marriage also attack SSUs, they are very rarely acceptable in practice.

SSUs would still be a compromise: half a victory but also half a defeat. Better than nothing, but not as good as getting SSM. I'd be surprised if there were any who retreated from a pro-SSM position to SSUs who would disagree with that assessment.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
SSUs are acceptable, in theory, if they are accompanied by language and legislation that prevents them from being made lesser than marriages. Since most attempts at "protecting" marriage also attack SSUs, they are very rarely acceptable in practice.

SSUs would still be a compromise

That's what I have been proposing, calling for, trying to gather support for. Even President Bush JR suggested that he was amenable to such a compromise. A national amendment that both recognizes marriage as union of man and woman, plus requires state recognition of same sex unions, with all rights and privileges of marriages except those contingent on or based on the assumption of biological reproduction, e.g. the presumption of paternity, and the consummation doctrine.

Based on the Gallup polls 10 years ago, this could have passed, if you joined SSU supporters with a majority of SSM supporters.

quote:
: half a victory but also half a defeat.
Fully half a defeat? The one word is fully equal to all of the substantive rights of marriage? I understand you seeing as a compromise, but are you exaggerating the defeat part a bit?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
No, except in my picture everyone was in flapper dresses.

I hope your next FB picture is you in a flapper dress. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This tidbit is relevant:

Addressing the controversy that has erupted over the upcoming film “Ender’s Game,” producer Bob Orci used the Hall H stage at Comic-Con International to offer his impassioned support of LGBT rights. He said the movie does not represent the anti-gay views that have been expressed by author Orson Scott Card, on whose novel the 1985 project is based.

“I would hate to see the efforts of all the people who made this movie thwarted for the less than 1% of the people behind the movie, particularly because the message of the book and the movie is tolerance, compassion and empathy,” Orci said.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/books/comic-con-enders-game-gay-marriage/#/0


And some more good comments here:

"My view is I've been a member of the Courage Campaign for many years and I'm a little distressed by his point of view on gay marriage," Hood said.

"However, the book is not about that issue, so I hope people can still appreciate the book because I think he wrote a great book, and the themes and ideas in the book, I think, are universal and timeless and applicable, and I hope the book will still be appreciated as a great work of art, even though I don't agree with the author. I optioned the book, not an author, and I love what the author said in that book."

...Lionsgate Entertainment also issued a statement rebuking Card's position and said it would hold a benefit premiere to LGBT causes.

...Hood said the book's themes of kindness and compassion are what drew him to the story, and he was surprised by Card's position.

"I think it's slightly bitterly ironic that those themes that are present in the book are not carried through on his particular view on gay marriage," Hood said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/enders-game-gay-rights-questions_n_3618072.html

Seems like they are handling this superbly. Thoughts?

[ July 22, 2013, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
This tidbit is relevant:

Seems like they are handling this superbly. Thoughts?

It appears to me that this will not explode into a full on LGBT+Supporters storm of wrath. I think that's because the major press is ignoring the boycott, and Hollywood is definitely not behind it. No famous actors or actresses are going to back this one. Besides GeeksOUT, no other large LGBT organization has come out in support of a boycott (from what I know). I'd call it a storm in a teacup but it doesn't even get there. It is a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been expecting a storm here, since before GeeksOUT ever said anything, and I'm still expecting something. I hope that I'm wrong and that Grant's right.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think for you to be right Pete, someone will have to distort some portion of the novel to frame it as anti-LGBT.

I've long found OSC's positions, which I consider intolerant on SSM and partisan on overall politics, at odds with the messages and insightfulness in this series. There's nothing there to fuel the fire. IMO his fiction in this series couldn't be more detached from OSC's critique of our reality.

changed narrow minded to partisan as I think that's more fair. He's a smart guy but I think his hyperfocus on certin things blinds him to the big picture some times.

[ July 22, 2013, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think his hyperfocus on certin things blinds him to the big picture some times."

The only people that I've ever met of whom what you just said was NOT true, were so unfocused and uninformed that talking to them longer than a minute was painful.

Reminds me of a 17th argument against the use of microscopes and telescopes on the basis that the were instruments of distortion. [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1