On Card and Homosexuality

[netmouse]

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

Comments

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

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.

[bjorng.livejournal.com]

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.

[brendand.livejournal.com]

It appears to me as though the second article is based more about children and less about homosexual relationships. I agree largely with the writer of the letter titled "No Teetering Here." And I think OSC's response was even less mature than he could have intended. It almost felt like "I don't have any intelligent comeback, so I'm gonna sling mud."

The other interesting point is that nowhere does OSC mention the idea of a "civil union" or any other type of legal recognition of same-sex "marriage." The author of "NTH" only made passing reference to it, as well. I wonder if OSC would really be opposed to some legal protection of homosexual relationships, or if he simply is working to maintain the institution of marriage.

Personally, I don't care what you call it. There are some people (both hetero- and homosexual) who feel that if homosexuals are given "civil unions" they will not be seen as equal. Something along the lines of thought of "separate but equal" from when white and black children attended separated elementary schools. There are subtle difference, in my mind. To me, I have no problem with the idea of being given a "civil union." (A while back, I agreed with you, Matt, on the fact that the government shouldn't be handing out marriage licenses... That *all* relationships should be recognized by the government as a "civil union.") This is HIGHLY unlikely to happen, however.

To me, homosexuals are not asking to be brought together so that we can learn in the same schools. We're asking for the same legal protections. I know this is where I may get a lot of flack from people, but I still think it's true. In a courtroom, we're likely to get fair treatment, once these legal protections are in place. Most of what we're asking for are things that are going to take place in that type of setting. We want to be recognized as the spouse of our partner, if something should happen to them, and have medical power of attorney, be able to file taxes together, adopt children together, etc. We're asking for legal protections, not government supplied amenities. (I'm not saying we don't want to be able to use public transportation, or public schooling, just that we already have access to those things, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would try to take them away from us.)

While there are some people who will always be opposed to homosexuality, that will lessen once legal protections are inacted. People (on average) are much less racist than they were 100 years ago. People will be less heterosexist 100 years from now.