RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I chose to vote for Prop 8 in CA because there wasn't enough information (in my mind) to logically make the change that would allow gay marriage. My choice was not really affected by religion.
DISCLAIMER: I have one question, and it is an attempt to try and understand where you are coming from. Your stance is very contrary to my thoughts and opinions, so I am trying not to sound snarky, but I may not succeed. If I come off that way, I apologize.
In a democratic society based on civil rights, if you can admit that you don't have enough information to take a formal secular stance, isn't the de facto response to NOT deny someone rights and benefits? Isn't the burden of proof in the hands of those that wish to deny rights?
To be honest, I am not an expert in law or politics so I may be wrong and just not know it. However I felt the burden of proof laid with those that wanted to change the situation, not with those that wanted to keep it the same. I also felt the de facto response was to keep things the same.
However, prop 8 would have kept things the same, with the exception that the law specified exactly what marriage was legally. Seeing as I was hard pressed to find answers I had about gay marriage, and thus reasons to deny or allow it, I decided to vote Yes to keep the situation as close to the same as possible.
Some of my questions were related to the effects of homosexuality in a traditional marriage situation. The big question related to fertility rates and if they would be effected. Basically some long term effect questions. The few sources that did try to address these concerns were not creditable, or went on biased rants that made it hard to believe the information.
However, that is just my reason for voting Yes at the time. Should another item about gay rights came up in a ballot there is a good chance I would vote differently.
I am 100% unclear how not letting gay people marry would have a greater effect on fertility rates than letting gay people marry.
I must assume that by "fertility rates" he means "birth rates".
My guess is? Not at all. Birth rates and marriage are only loosely related anyway. And homosexuals don't tend to have a lot of children, married or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fertility rates?
*drops jaw*
You guys are honestly worried that gay marriage is going to affect FERTILITY RATES? As in, birth rates?
Wow.
If you want the simplest assumption, assume that gay people do not have children. It's not absolutely true, but probably close enough. This does not likely change at all depending on how many of them are married. Those who want to marry are the ones who want to live together exclusively, and they will do so whether they are allowed to marry or not.
Another assumption: It is possible that some few bisexual people will actually choose to marry someone of the same sex, specifically because the law would allow them to, people who would otherwise marry someone of the opposite sex. Again, this concerns so few that it's likely best estimated as zero.
But a more serious question:
If fertility rates drop, isn't that cause for cheering? Taking the US as an example, the people cheered their heads off when you passed 200 M people. Recently, at 300 M people, not so much. A low birth rate is a GOOD thing. It is a sign of a healthy, educated society. You REALLY do not want to compete against India or China regarding population. We did go forth. We did multiply. The Earth is well populated by now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are honestly worried that gay marriage is going to affect FERTILITY RATES? As in, birth rates?
See, this is what happens when you won't teach evolution in biology class. People start to loose fact of other basic biological facts...
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
My question at that time was, "Will total fertility rate lower as a result, or will they stay the same?" It was really one of many questions I was asking at the time.
At the time I was hearing and reading things about fertility rates, how they were already going down, what that meant in regards to populations over long periods of time, and what would happen if they were really low. It was kind of a topic I was interested in at the time.
Total fertility rate is the number of birth per woman, and the replacement rate for a modern developed population is 2.2. The TFR for the US is 2.05, and some countries have fallen well below 2.0. This means that the population doesn't have enough births to replace itself. At the moment the world's TFR is 2.52, but it needs about a 2.5 or 2.6 (experts disagree on the exact number) to maintain the world population. If you live in the US though, the population is still going to rise, as immigration is still a large part of how our population grows.
The full concern was basically if the TFR did lower as a result of allowing and encouraging gay marriage, then the population wouldn't be able to sustain itself and it would shrink. However, not long after voting on Prop 8 I realized that there shouldn't be a decrease and I was just being paranoid.
I admit it was a strange question to ask but I was asking it, and the fact that no one could answer convincingly concerned me at the time. It was just one of many questions though, and I was using it as an example of what I was asking. I really am not that concerned with it now.
I was a freshman in collage. I wanted to make logical and informed decisions. There was a huge amount of pressure to vote coming from both sides (heck, a teacher even had the class debate on the matter for an assignment!) I think I did pretty well considering the circumstances.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
But a more serious question:
If fertility rates drop, isn't that cause for cheering? Taking the US as an example, the people cheered their heads off when you passed 200 M people. Recently, at 300 M people, not so much. A low birth rate is a GOOD thing. It is a sign of a healthy, educated society. You REALLY do not want to compete against India or China regarding population. We did go forth. We did multiply. The Earth is well populated by now.
We also just hit 7 billion with a world population. However, we shouldn't expect that number to rise as fast as it has in the past, and some sources (possibly a little liberal in their assessment,) think it will start shrinking within the next 100 years.
As for a small TFR, it is considered bad to have something too low. For example, the US has a TFR of 2.05, which is considered sort of healthy. If it was 2.0 or 1.9 then we should be concerned, as that would mean the older generations would be more slightly more populous then the younger ones would be able to handle in terms of physical and financial needs. It would be doable, but a strain that would be felt. Luckily immigration is another factor to consider, and the US has a large and healthy rate of immigrants to make up for any loss due to low TFR.
Some European countries and areas have TFRs of 1.6 (Germany is the lowest with 1.36), and that is really, really bad. That basically means the population will noticeably shrink and do so at a rate that would cause big problems all around. And while immigration is something we should consider, those same countries don't have healthy immigration rates.
As for the Earth being well populated, look for the National Geographic issue that talks about the world population reaching 7 billion. You would be surprised how small of an area we really take up, and if there was a world party how small of an area would be needed to fit everyone.
|
But a more serious question:
If fertility rates drop, isn't that cause for cheering? Taking the US as an example, the people cheered their heads off when you passed 200 M people. Recently, at 300 M people, not so much. A low birth rate is a GOOD thing. It is a sign of a healthy, educated society. You REALLY do not want to compete against India or China regarding population. We did go forth. We did multiply. The Earth is well populated by now.
We also just hit 7 billion with a world population. However, we shouldn't expect that number to rise as fast as it has in the past, and some sources (possibly a little liberal in their assessment,) think it will start shrinking within the next 100 years.
As for a small TFR, it is considered bad to have something too low. For example, the US has a TFR of 2.05, which is considered sort of healthy. If it was 2.0 or 1.9 then we should be concerned, as that would mean the older generations would be more slightly more populous then the younger ones would be able to handle in terms of physical and financial needs. It would be doable, but a strain that would be felt. Luckily immigration is another factor to consider, and the US has a large and healthy rate of immigrants to make up for any loss due to low TFR.
Some European countries and areas have TFRs of 1.6 (Germany is the lowest with 1.36), and that is really, really bad. That basically means the population will noticeably shrink and do so at a rate that would cause big problems all around. And while immigration is something we should consider, those same countries don't have healthy immigration rates.
As for the Earth being well populated, look for the National Geographic issue that talks about the world population reaching 7 billion. You would be surprised how small of an area we really take up, and if there was a world party how small of an area would be needed to fit everyone.
And yet, we are running out of potable water, arable land suitable for crops, not to mention the pollution we're causing. Just because we could physically fit more people onto the planet, does not mean that humans are not near/have already crossed* the threshold of a sustainable population.
*=
EDIt: Also, actually, I'd expect us to hit 9 billion more quickly than it took to go from 5 to 7, assuming there's no crash, owing to the fact that populations tend to expand exponentially, not linearly until they sail past the environmental limits, waving goodbye and subsequently crash. Although until they crash, they still tend to expand exponentially.
EDIT EDIT: This is all off-topic, though so I'll stop.
I like OSC's early work, and the first Pastwatch book, that is about it. "A Planet Called Treason" is my favorite, even if it does use Orson's favorite plot device of Dues Ex Machina. That's right my favorite isn't "Ender's Game." Don't ask why, I really don't know.
I am also Mormon. I found it ironic when someone who was clearly pro-homosexuality posted about how disgusted they were that a book was written by a Mormon.
I, and just about every other Mormon I have talked to, do not agree with Mr. Card's ways of expressing his political and personal views. In fact, I really would like it if someone in power (or Card himself) would slap a statement on his work that said something to effect of "The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of this man's religion."
Now, I haven't read Hamlet's Father, but I would hope that someone will and post about their thoughts on it in a constructive and non-biased way. I would not be surprised if it was the blunt statement against homosexuality that people are claiming it is, and I would agree that it is bad taste to write something like that.
Let me make the point clear: Card is Mormon, but not all Mormons like him or agree with him. In fact some believe he has done more damage then good.
Now on to Mormons and homosexuality, because that was brought up here and I want to clarify a couple things. Please, don't take what it said personally, I am not here to insult anyone, or even make them uncomfortable. Be respectful of me and what I post and I will respond nicely. Flame me and I might kindly address one or two points and then ignore you.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has stated in a document titled, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." If you want to see what the churches standing is on family, read that. It is pretty clear and to the point and addresses the world, not just the...
Sounds to me like you sir are a mature and responsible adult that has learned to live well with others.
I wish nothing but the best for you and yours.I hope you never felt that this thread was a bashing on your faith or anyone else's for that matter.
It doesn't make any sense to disrespect anyone's beliefs anymore than it does to disrespect anyone's lifestyle.
Fertility rates?
*drops jaw*
You guys are honestly worried that gay marriage is going to affect FERTILITY RATES? As in, birth rates?
Clearly "the gay" is a communicable disease, but it's a psychosomatic disease so it can only spread if people accept it exists and is ok.
My question at that time was, "Will total fertility rate lower as a result, or will they stay the same?" It was really one of many questions I was asking at the time.
At the time I was hearing and reading things about fertility rates, how they were already going down, what that meant in regards to populations over long periods of time, and what would happen if they were really low. It was kind of a topic I was interested in at the time.
Total fertility rate is the number of birth per woman, and the replacement rate for a modern developed population is 2.2. The TFR for the US is 2.05, and some countries have fallen well below 2.0. This means that the population doesn't have enough births to replace itself. At the moment the world's TFR is 2.52, but it needs about a 2.5 or 2.6 (experts disagree on the exact number) to maintain the world population. If you live in the US though, the population is still going to rise, as immigration is still a large part of how our population grows.
The full concern was basically if the TFR did lower as a result of allowing and encouraging gay marriage, then the population wouldn't be able to sustain itself and it would shrink. However, not long after voting on Prop 8 I realized that there shouldn't be a decrease and I was just being paranoid.
I admit it was a strange question to ask but I was asking it, and the fact that no one could answer convincingly concerned me at the time. It was just one of many questions though, and I was using it as an example of what I was asking. I really am not that concerned with it now.
I was a freshman in collage. I wanted to make logical and informed decisions. There was a huge amount of pressure to vote coming from both sides (heck, a teacher even had the class debate on the matter for an assignment!) I think I did pretty well considering the circumstances.
The birth rate is a direct result of modernization, overall education (which is a very likely reason why, combined with immigration from the south, that the US has a higher birth rate than say, Europe), wealth, and availability of family planning (which is partially related to education and wealth), religious beliefs, and immigration from countries with the inverse of all those things that lower birth rates.
If you claim accepting birth rates would be affected by allowing gay people to marry was a logical decision, I have some ocean view property in Kansas I need to unload.|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
... However, not long after voting on Prop 8 I realized that there shouldn't be a decrease and I was just being paranoid.If you claim accepting birth rates would be affected by allowing gay people to marry was a logical decision, I have some ocean view property in Kansas I need to unload.
No thank you, but if you have any property on the moon for my lunar ponies I wouldn't mind looking into that.
I haven't read the book myself yet, but when the reviewer—who clearly has an axe to grind against the author's politics—suggests that Card has made Hamlet a one-dimensional character, that sets off my BS-meter. I've read nearly every novel Card has written, along with most of his novellas and short stories, and I think the one thing Card is *best* at is characterization.
The Ghost Quartet- where the story originally appeared- can be searched here. In addition, on the metafilter thread, there's been confirmation that if anything, the review softpedals the story. And by the way- do you regard this as a hack job by an author with an axe to grind?
I also find it fascinating the degree of denial and defensiveness that the SF&F community engages in when there's negative publicity about a reactionary writer. It's always when a right-wing writer expresses something like violent islamaphobia or an admiration for Nazis that the community responds with "He's just making a clever point about <something unrelated to the topic>", or "But that's just his opinion, don't judge his writing". It seems to go in hand with the SF&F community's flirtation with reactionary philosophies.
I haven't read the book myself yet, but when the reviewer—who clearly has an axe to grind against the author's politics—suggests that Card has made Hamlet a one-dimensional character, that sets off my BS-meter. I've read nearly every novel Card has written, along with most of his novellas and short stories, and I think the one thing Card is *best* at is characterization.The Ghost Quartet- where the story originally appeared- can be searched here. In addition, on the metafilter thread, there's been confirmation that if anything, the review softpedals the story. And by the way- do you regard this as a hack job by an author with an axe to grind?
I also find it fascinating the degree of denial and defensiveness that the SF&F community engages in when there's negative publicity about a reactionary writer. It's always when a right-wing writer expresses something like violent islamaphobia or an admiration for Nazis that the community responds with "He's just making a clever point about <something unrelated to the topic>", or "But that's just his opinion, don't judge his writing". It seems to go in hand with the SF&F community's flirtation with reactionary philosophies.
What.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's becoming increasingly obvious that Card is a self-loathing closeted homosexual. So deep in the closet that he can see Narnia.
Shows up all through his writing, really, from Ender's Game onwards.
Third, I have to disagree with the argument that pro-traditional marriage = homophobia. It is possible to support the traditional definition of marriage and not be 'anti-gay'.
Agreed that this isn't a topic for here - but you probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place... Whoops.
What.
"What" what?
If I remember correctly, according to Slaughterhouse-Five, in one of the nine or so dimensions that Tralfamadorians can see into it is revealed that male homosexual copulation has a lot to do with the fertility rate, while lesbians, sadly, do not.
Which is good, because I hear that gay guys hump a LOT.
While it's bad that this supposed "author" can publish hate like he does it's better than censorship.
I can only imagine what kind of person makes a living off of hacking up literary classics to make them modern or socially relevant.When the politically correct version of Grimm's fairy tales were published they at least knew it was all tongue in cheek and satirical. I guess this guy didn't get the memo.
For me this one falls under " I may not agree with what you say but will defend unto the death your right to say it"
Couldn't agree more. Censorship is a pretty big 'hot button' for me and my personal views are probably way more extreme than most people would like.
|
|
What."What" what?
I'm guessing Cartigan isn't familiar with things like John Campbell's racism, or the attitudes that Norman Spinrad lampooned in "The Iron Dream."
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much pressing need to defend this from anything more than Werthead's snark.
I'm guessing Cartigan isn't familiar with things like John Campbell's racism, or the attitudes that Norman Spinrad lampooned in "The Iron Dream."
Or James P. Hogan's Holocaust denial, or Bradbury's misogyny, or more recently, comments by McCaffery, Norman Spinrad, SM Sterling...and then there's the whole RaceFail 09 debacle, the timeline of which really should be read to be believed. And many, many more. This is leaving aside popular yet problematic themes in fantasy such as the romanticism of feudalism and authoritarian systems. But it doesn't take much research to open this particular can of worms.
|
Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/
As opposed to the more common, hate for all things not liberal.
Which is, of course, perfectly acceptable... The hypocrisy being spewed in this thread is hi-lar-ious.
I hate liberals.
Well, having seen all this lively debate, I certainly plan on reading the book from cover to cover.
Around the outside.
(Thank you, Demitri Martin.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/As opposed to the more common, hate for all things not liberal.
Who pressed the conservative persecution complex button?
Help, help, we're being oppressed! Come see the liberalness inherent in the system!
He was an Old School Brit, Knighted by the Queen and all that, after all.
Tolkien was never knighted. He was made CBE a few months before his death, which is pretty much the highest non-military honour you can get without being knighted, but no more than that.
The Monarchy is still pretty popular, especially to Englanders.
Something of a generalisation. It's fairer to say that to most Englanders they are tolerated, and welcome as far as they strengthen the UK economy. There was strong and growing anti-monarchist sentiment in the UK before a wide-ranging revamping of the way the monarchy was funded in the 1990s. Basically, they stopped being mostly funded out of general taxation (i.e. by us) and became mostly (but not totally) funded by them running their estates and assets as businesses and tourist attractions. Once it became clearer how much money the monarchy brought into the country as a tourist attraction, they stopped sponging off the state as much (though they still do a bit) and started paying tax, a lot of Brits dropped their mild opposition to them.
I suspect if Charles became king this issue would rise back into prominence, since he is near-universally disliked. People here (and I strongly suspect elsewhere, especially in the USA based on the reception to the wedding) are strongl in favour of Charles refusing the throne and William becoming King instead, but we'll see.
For those of you still interested in the original topic of the thread, OSC responds to some of the more extreme criticisms of Hamlet's Father on his website here. Since I thought that the response applied to some of the criticism received in this thread, I have mentioned and linkified it for you.
Short synopsis: he is unapologetic about what he has written, but there are those who are being untruthful in reporting to others about what he has written, and he is responding to that. Read and interpret as you will, but at least this comes from the horse's mouth.
Hmm. Getting detailed info from someone who's read the book might be helpful at this stage. Though the only person I know who had a copy threw it out in tedium, this is tricky.
Still, even going by Card's statement and the review, there seems to be a disconnect:
there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex.
This seems to be contradicted by:
The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."
If all four characters are indeed 'turned gay' as a result of Hamlet's father's pedophilia, this does indicate a cause-effect link (on the basis of once is a solitary event, twice a coincidence, third is more than that etc). Additionally:
Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
Maybe Hamlet's evil dad ghost is referring to something else here, but certainly that seems suggestive of some kind of sexual threat being made to the - at this stage - adult Hamlet.
The pedophilia=homosexuality link is also something that Card has commented on publicly before:
The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
So from appearances, Card seems to be using an extremely selective semantic argument (Hamlet's father's ghost does not evidence signs of attraction to another adult man or woman in the story) to deny the primary criticism (a cause-effect link is made between homosexuality and pedophilia). The primary criticism still appears valid, just not quite in the way suggested by the original review.
Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/As opposed to the more common, hate for all things not liberal.
Which is, of course, perfectly acceptable... The hypocrisy being spewed in this thread is hi-lar-ious.
You know, people have committed grand larceny in the past. Never mind that they went to prison for it. The fact that THEY did it means that it's the height of hypocrisy if you don't allow ME to do it, too. Right?
Maybe some things are not acceptable, no matter who did them in the past, or is doing them now?
|
|
Maybe some things are not acceptable, no matter who did them in the past, or is doing them now?Card is Mormon, I believe, and is very conservative. He had/has a blog around someplace this exhibits his hate for all things not conservative: http://www.ornery.org/As opposed to the more common, hate for all things not liberal.
Which is, of course, perfectly acceptable... The hypocrisy being spewed in this thread is hi-lar-ious.
Riiight...
You do realize that was pretty much my point?
I went back and re-read the first page and a half of this thread--unless someone mentioning that OSC is a Mormon is some kind of incitement to hate conservatives, I don't know what you're talking about.
I skipped most of the talk about homosexuality and birth rates, though.
You do realize that was pretty much my point?
It was a cautionary tale, since your exceptionally caustic tone was implying that you were about to erupt into the exact same behavior.
|
|
You do realize that was pretty much my point?It was a cautionary tale, since your exceptionally caustic tone was implying that you were about to erupt into the exact same behavior.
I'm sorry, I think you misspelled sarcastic. Were I being 'caustic' the post would have been much longer and likely deleted before you ever saw it.
Caustic and sarcastic are synonyms.