Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_Daniel Peterson]

No. I do think it is possible for a person with fascist beliefs to call themselves libertarian. I gave an example of a person who holds views extremely similar to that of the Taliban who not only calls himself a libertarian, but actually is a notable figure among the "paleolibertarians." Gary North. Look him up.

I'm aware of Gary North.

My own libertarian leanings -- I don't claim to be a full-fledged libertarian, but I'm strongly sympathetic even to that school -- have been fed over the years by readings of (and, in some cases, conversations with) people like Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek (conversation), Milton Friedman (conversation), Murray Rothbard (conversation), Tibor Machan, Robert Nozick, Henry Hazlitt, Ayn Rand, and John Hospers.

Otherwise, I take it, they're pretty much identical?

In terms of their favored legal treatment of homosexuality?

I was thinking more broadly, but, yes, even in that narrower sense.

Perhaps I haven't devoted enough time to study of the social and political thought of Scott Card. Could you please list some of the penalties or punishments he favors for either homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior?

[_Ray A]

Perhaps I haven't devoted enough time to study of the social and political thought of Scott Card. Could you please list some of the penalties or punishments he favors for either homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior?

Austin Cline

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah. Okay. Well, it's interesting to read Austin Cline's take on Card's views, which seem to me (even on Cline's showing) somewhat more nuanced than the standard position of the Taliban -- even omitting the question of capital punishment for homosexuality.

[_EAllusion]

I was thinking more broadly, but, yes, even in that narrower sense.

Broadly? No. But that's not how I took the Taliban reference. I thought it was a sarcastic insult meant to connect Card's views to those of the Taliban on homosexuality.

In the narrower sense, yes that is the main difference. They aren't going to line up perfectly, but in the big picture, Card just favors penalties less severe than death for homosexual behavior (i.e imprisonment). As you just read, he seems to favor making examples out of people and going after more "flagrant" violators to send a message that homosexuals are not welcome rather than blanket enforcement. Since he hasn't outlined a specific set of policy proposals and his views seem a little fluid, one is left to try and put something coherent together from what he has said. For instance, he has been willing to consider homosexual adoption as an option of absolute last resort - noting that the harm to children would be fundamental.* But he also has said that it should be a goal of the state to discourage all homosexual relationships and to enforce penalties against homosexual behavior to that end up to and including the use of criminal penalties. The allowance of any adoptions sits quite uncomfortably next to that notion. I don't think you can put forward a good case that this means Card respects basic human rights for homosexuals, but the Taliban does not. The Taliban is just a little more brutal in its attempts to wipe out what OSC calls "homosexual practice."

As far as the libertarian comment goes, I'll just add to my previous statement that people can hold generally libertarian views while significantly diverging on a few topics. There's plenty of examples of that. One could, in theory, hold rather harsh views towards homosexual rights while otherwise being the social liberal that libertarianism tends towards.

*If you want to get a sense of what kind of harm he might mean, this comment might be instructive:

Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

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.

It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage."

They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."

Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

They will make it harder for us to raise children with any confidence that they, in turn, will take their place in the reproductive cycle. They will use all the forces of our society to try to encourage our children that it is desirable to be like them.

Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them. But for those parents who have kids who hover in confusion, their lives complicated by painful experiences, conflicting desires, and many fears, the P.C. elite will now demand that the full machinery of the state be employed to draw them away from the cycle of life.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

[_antishock8]

It's astounding to me that people can be so overtly bigoted, from the person making the remark to the people echoing it. Replace "gay" with "black" or "Muslim" or "Republican", and I think people would be whistling a different tune. Absolutely disgusting.

Pay attention jackass.

Black = race

Republican, Gay, and Muslim = choices.

learn the difference so you can discuss the topic intelligently.

Speaking of jackasses.... You're in a bit of a bind with that assertion. Not only did you box yourself in with the "choice" issue regarding homosexuality, but you also boxed yourself in with the "doesn't have a choice" option, too. And that's my point, homosexuality, whether you regard it as innate, or a choice, is being targeted in a bigoted manner by people who would scream bloody murder if someone was targeted for discrimination... Whether they chose an affiliation or lifestyle or not.

As I've said before, I'm willing to pass on the ad homs if Mormons here want to stick to subject material. Hopefully you'll agree and do the same. If not... Meh... I can sling mud, too. It doesn't really matter either way.

The Internet Mormon's M.O.:

1) Declare anti-Mormons are rude, then act rudely.

2) Declare anti-Mormons have no life, then spend life on anti-Mormon boards.

3) Declare anti-Mormons are stupid, then believe in Mormonism.

4) Ignore fellow Mormons' bad behavior, then point out all perceived slights against self or other Mormons.

5) Stomp foot, and exit in a huff. Come back. Repeat when embarrassed.

6) Ignore logic or doctrinal issues and engage in ad hom and red herrings. Get mad if someone follows suit.

[_The Dude]

Card favors overthrowing the government if it doesn't support his religious views. Apparently he would prefer some kind of theocratic rule. That's what I meant by the Taliban comparison, not a strict congruence on anti-homosexuality per se.

As for DCP and the Taliban, that joke would have been obvious to anyone else. I should learn not to tease such narcissistic personalities, but sometimes it's hard to pass up.

[_EAllusion]

Card favors overthrowing the government if it doesn't support his religious views. Apparently he would prefer some kind of theocratic rule. That's what I meant by the Taliban comparison, not a strict congruence on anti-homosexuality per se.

Hmmm. While Card's views clearly are likely as such due in large part to his religion, he makes a secular case. (Look to my last post to see an example of the kind of arguments he makes). And while that secular case may be a sham rationalization, I think he at least believes it. He apparently favors violent overthrow of a government because allowing gay marriage means social and moral apocalypse.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Card favors overthrowing the government if it doesn't support his religious views.

Really?

Apparently he would prefer some kind of theocratic rule.

Really?

That's what I meant by the Taliban comparison, not a strict congruence on anti-homosexuality per se.

In other words, a sloppy grab for rhetorical advantage by comparing one's target to a universally despised and condemned group.

As for DCP and the Taliban, that joke would have been obvious to anyone else. I should learn not to tease such narcissistic personalities, but sometimes it's hard to pass up.

Disappointing gratuitous personal insult duly noted.

[_The Dude]

Card favors overthrowing the government if it doesn't support his religious views.

Really?

Did you read the opening post? Did you read the link I posted to the article that provides context for the quote? Really?

Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

OSC's views on "respect and support marriage" are religious. So the government he wants is one that enforces his religious views (on this issue at least).

[_EAllusion]

OSC's views on "respect and support marriage" are religious.

Again, you have to take into account the fact that OSC makes a secular case for those views and seems to believe it. He wants the government to enforce his secular views that - in all likelihood - he has attached himself to in large part because of his religious background.