April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Down the road a piece | Main | Capitulation »

Jul 28, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

James Protzman

Laws against pre-marital sex should be remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put promiscuous people in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in sex outside of marriage in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their un-Christian behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.


Hell, lets just outlaw everything, and just sit around till we die, and never feel anything ever again... because I'm sure, if there is a God... then certainly the point of living to him/her is to never feel or think, or live.

John D. Young

It seems that most of us agree that marriage and a committed, non-promiscuous, loving relationship is a virtuous, social good. We seem to agree that married, long-term, loving relationships provide the best foundation for child raising and family development.

Then why should we want to deny anyone access to marriage and the creation of a loving, long-term, stable relationship?

Our community and its laws should welcome and urge straight, gay and lesbian folks to seek a loving marriage and if children are involved we should realize that these children will greatly benefit from a stable, loving marriage/family relationship.

Ed Cone

Not everyone agrees.

John D. Young

Indeed Ed, far from everyone!

Also, according to Card above: "And on the civilian ship, the man who thought he could press the button to kill hundreds of convicts – aka "human scum" – sets the detonator back in its box. He can't do it. (This is the slight cheat, by the way; there are plenty of people who could, and it is a morally defensible act, unless you're a Quaker.)"

A strong commitment to non-violence and pacifism is much broader than just the Quaker tradition. Many people world wide would properly choose to "set the detonator back in its box." Pacifism has deep roots in Tolstoy's Russian Christianity, Gandhi's Hinduism and the Jain's in India, in Stanley Hauerwas' Orthodox Christianity, in Amish, Mennonite and in some Jewish and Sufi/Muslim traditions, in many Buddhist traditions, etc. etc. The "greatest good for the greatest number" utilitarian argument is purely a secular argument often used to justify war and violence. One end result of utilitarianism ethics is the secular worship of the nation-state.


What I don't get is how allowing consenting adults to engage in sexual behavior of their choosing with a person of their choosing is in anyway a threat to "safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships." Is Card saying that, without laws against homosexuality, he is more likely to cheat on his wife with another man?

Card's argument is for laws against adultery, not against homosexuality.


legislating the stiff one eye has been tried...as with speed limits..it should be self-enforced and punishment should be the degree of guilt one or both parties experience after committing the "infraction".


"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" - Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson's sentiment applies to most anything my neighbor does that does not interfere with my own pursuit of happiness. As long as they don't do it loudly when I'm trying to sleep. Marry anyone you want, just don't mow the lawn at 8:00 AM on Saturday and keep your pooping dog off my lawn.

Dave Dobson

Watching smart people twist around trying to justify their bigotries is always interesting.

Ian McDowell

Before I make the following comment, let me make it clear that I know that homosexuality and pedophilia are two entirely different things. Furthermore, I'm NOT seriously suggesting that OSC's tendency to extravagantly praise young boy actors is evidence of aberrant tendencies. I have a friend who wrote a very successful comic book, in which almost every black female character burns to death. My friend is not a racist or a misogynist, and was unaware of the "burned black woman" meme in his own work until someone pointed it out to him.

Still, am I the only one who's a bit creeped out by the extravagant way Card praises the performance of every prepubescent male actor in every film he reviews, no matter how minor the kid's role or how unexceptional the performance? If some towheaded ten-year-old boy has five lines of dialogue in a film, Card will call him the second coming of Olivier.

The comments to this entry are closed.