TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2490
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?
Are you doing it because you believe the comic is irrelevant, or because you believe the writer's views are irrelevant?

If you are reading comics for any reason other than that you enjoy them, then what are you doing? You are actively choosing to read things that you will not enjoy.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:


There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties. (There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.

There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.


Nope.

Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage

39 -- The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage.

5 -- The number of U.S. states that allow civil unions between same-sex couples, but not marriage.

6 -- The number of U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage, along with the District of Columbia. However, due to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize the same-sex marriages in these states.

1,100 -- The number of federal benefits to marriage.


Or better;; http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/civil-unions

Quote:
With Hawaii and Delaware joining the list Sunday, five states now recognize same-sex civil unions, while six other states and Washington, D.C., allow same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.


That equals 11 if DC is one of the six, 12 if it is not... they could be a little more clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Casual Notice
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 2969
Location: Oh my God, It's full of stars!

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the point marscaleb was trying to make, as erroneous as his statistics may have been, was that there are levels and degrees to what we consider "marriage" in the United States, and various applicable definitions.

The civil aspect of marriage is hard to pin down. Essentially, those who seek only to recognize civil unions (that is combined mutual co-habitation contracts between individuals that encompass the separate contracts of survivorship, shared power-of-attorney, and reasonable liquidation of joint assets) see marriage in that light: Two people who shoose, for love's sake, to live together and share of their hearth and home.

This level alone carries with it a supply of political time bombs. If homosexual cohabitants are entitled to the full menu of benefits and priveleges afforded by government-recognized union, then why not (as VL points out) polygamous households? More to the point, why not households where families are forced together due to economic circumstance, but where adult children no longer qualify as dependents due to age?

Then you add in the cuktural/religious aspect. The word "marriage" carries with it a lot of freighting that cannot be attributed simply to the suite of benefits afforded by the civil union contract. The modern connotations have somewhat muddies the historical accuracies, here. It's a fact that until about the turn of the last century, "marriage" (in the sense of registered with the government and sanctified by the church) was not something the majority of people were inclined to do, but the rise of the middle class in the late 19th century combined with the mechanization of records made public marriage so necessary that in a few generations, most Americans have forgotten there was ever any other way.

It's just not a cut-and-dried issue. Supporting the recognition (it's important to understand that gay marriage isn't illegal; it simply isn't recognized as valid by a number of state governments) of gay marriage doesn't make one an unholy sinner any more than opposing full rights of marriage for non-traditional couples makes one a Nazi (for one thing, many otherwise moderate people who oppose gaymarriage in their state fear a situation where their church is forced, due to lawsuits and political pressure, to perform ceremonies for relationships they believe to be a vilation of their tenets--yess this has already occurred).
_________________
Casual Notice--commentary, comics and an appreciation for snappy hats.
S*P*Q*R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:
Sounds to me like you have only heard one side of the argument. A fair opinion would have to acknowledge that there is at least a reasonable debate here, but like many, you probably have never actually heard the other side of the debate. Allow me to offer you some illumination.


Not only do I acknowledge there is a reasonable debate here, I thought we were having one.

Quote:
There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties.


That's kind of limiting; I would add the fairness and equality issues (I know those are becoming dirty words in this debate). Separate but equal school facilities for blacks and whites was recognized as essentially stigmatizing blacks as being not equal. I see similarities here.

Quote:
(There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.


Well, if the emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes. The solution, then, is to get it out of government completely. Get it exclusively into the churches where it can be “sacred.” It's not for the government to keep some procedure “sacred” and accessible to only a portion of the citizens.

Quote:
People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because...


You took a poll?

Quote:
People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.


Walk into any bar in America, tell the guy next to you you're sick of the gays trying to take over the country, and ask him what he thinks of gay marriage. Here's what you WON'T hear: “I feel that we are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.”
Now they can be trained to parrot something like this, so it sounds nice when the cameras are rolling, but don't think there's this monolithic motivation. Not to say you're not sincere or that there are not many many sincere people opposed to gay marriage for the reasons you stated, but you don't speak for everybody. A big part of this is “we'uns versus you'uns”; marriage is for normal humans, not the fags, sorry.

Quote:
Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.


Government shouldn't be in the “keeping things sacred” business.

Quote:
There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.


Translation: I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lo (Aquapunk)



Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?
Are you doing it because you believe the comic is irrelevant, or because you believe the writer's views are irrelevant?

If you are reading comics for any reason other than that you enjoy them, then what are you doing? You are actively choosing to read things that you will not enjoy.


It's that I find it interesting, in all the conversations about this I've been following, that there's a common conception that there are "right" and "wrong" reasons to not purchase a product/support a creator.

It's fascinating to me that the number of people out there who think Superman comics are distilled inanity and therefore do not buy far outnumber those that don't, and yet those in the "I disagree with Card's opinions and therefore don't wish to support his role in this run" camp are, in all likelihood, statistically insignificant, but it doesn't stop some people from claiming that their deliberate re-distribution of funds is morally dubious or even outright abject.

It seems to me that, by the logic that some are using, it's reprehensible that anyone should elect not to buy Superman comics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 755

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:
Quote:
Walk into any bar in America, tell the guy next to you you're sick of the gays trying to take over the country, and ask him what he thinks of gay marriage. Here's what you WON'T hear: “I feel that we are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.”
Now they can be trained to parrot something like this, so it sounds nice when the cameras are rolling, but don't think there's this monolithic motivation. Not to say you're not sincere or that there are not many many sincere people opposed to gay marriage for the reasons you stated, but you don't speak for everybody. A big part of this is “we'uns versus you'uns”; marriage is for normal humans, not the fags, sorry.


I'm a tetragametic chimera who happens to be intersexed, but has appeared to be female from birth. From a legal perspective I am considered female, even though biologically that description is not accurate. I had to take hormones to remain female-looking, which technically would make me transgendered. I can get pregnant and produce products of masculinity, even though my fetus are never viable and my shots are blank, so to speak. I am attracted to women, which would make me a lesbian by technicality, even though I am also male which might also make me heterosexual as well. For religious, friendship and practical reasons, I married a male. My whole issue with this "let's not allow the fags to do civil marriage," is the fact that gender/sex expression is a lot less cut and dry than people assume. My huge fear with marriage being fossilized as only reserved for "1 man and 1 woman," is that it favors one religious view over another (which is unconstitutional in the United States,) and that people with freak medical conditions like mine could have our marriages annulled if government decides to change how it legislates gender and sexual orientation towards a more narrow definition. By necessity, this narrowing of definition would be needed to enforce "1 man and 1 woman" laws, and frankly that terrifies me.

Most chimeras and intersexed people don't have any idea that they are what they are, and routine "normalizing" treatments do straddle the line between one person's transgenderism and another's hormonal imbalance. It's a nightmare place to be and one that the Bible is silent about -- which is why I err on the side of expressed birth gender. Even science doesn't have complete information on whether being gay is 100% nature or 100% nuture, so understandably I am very leery of government involvement beyond legislating the age of people getting married and punishing sexual predators/rapists.

I agree that government should not be legislating morality or religion. If it were up to me, marriage would be a strictly religious matter. But if it's going to do it anyway, and people are going to tolerate it because of the benefits they get, then we can't have separate but equal.

I am not speaking for anyone other than myself regarding this opinion.
_________________


Last edited by vaslittlecrow on Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:23 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 755

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And for the record, I don't give two craps about a creator's personal views as long as the comic is enjoyable to read. For better or for worse, I am a big supporter of free speech, and it's not my job to be the thought police. All I can do is choose to buy or not buy a product.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Casual Notice
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 2969
Location: Oh my God, It's full of stars!

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
reserved for "1 man and 1 woman,"

Also a fairly new social development. Adultery, in the biblical sense, refrs to a man taking the wife of another man, and no other situation. The Celts and other iron age peoples had complex marriage traditions, including a variation on the 300-mile rule, where couples that expected to be separated for a long period of time could be "divorced" for that period.

As for government defining whatever. As far as a state determining what cohabitation and relational contracts it will recognize, I'm all for that (assuming the people are apprised of what they're actually voting for, and not misled by half-truths on both sides as with the anti-marriage law here in Texas), but what I can't abide is the federal government violating the main text of the Constitution (DoMA essentially instructs federal authorities to disregard Article 4 Section 2, which allows for the validity of any rights granted in a state to be transferred to other states).

EDIT: As an aside, I'm curious, vas. Are you a victim of Polysomy 23 or of a fraternal parasitic sibling? Feel free to tell me to shove it if the question is too much...my curiosity oftn gets the best of my good sense.
_________________
Casual Notice--commentary, comics and an appreciation for snappy hats.
S*P*Q*R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 755

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice

Damn skippy, you know what you're talking about regarding the Bible and chimerism, at the same time. That's refreshing.

He's a parasitic pain in the ass... err... sibling. All that's noticeably left of him for the lay observer to notice is a solitary nipple and his stupid hormones affecting me. His presence is obvious enough that my mom actually said, "That explains a lot," with a sigh of relief when I finally found out what was going on with my body.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2490
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
It's that I find it interesting, in all the conversations about this I've been following, that there's a common conception that there are "right" and "wrong" reasons to not purchase a product/support a creator.
No, not right or wrong. Just better for you and worse for you. So long as it doesn't actively impose on anyone else, you are perfectly free to do whatever you wish, but I would recommend doing things that make you happy, versus things which don't.

Note that purchasing a product and supporting a creator are two separate acts. People tend to make less beneficial choices when they conflate the two. If you only wish to support the creator, just send them a check, don't waste money on a book you won't enjoy. If you just wish to read the book, don't bother yourself with crazy opinions the author holds.

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
in all likelihood, statistically insignificant, but it doesn't stop some people from claiming that their deliberate re-distribution of funds is morally dubious or even outright abject.
Statistics don't make moral rights irrelevant. It is either right or it is not.

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
It seems to me that, by the logic that some are using, it's reprehensible that anyone should elect not to buy Superman comics.
I thought I made a pretty clear rebuttal to this logic previously. If you enjoy the comic, you should probably buy it. If you do not enjoy it, then you should not buy it. You have the right to do either. Statistically speaking, it is generally better for your own happiness that you don't take the author's opinion into consideration.
_________________


Last edited by vulpeslibertas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vaslittlecrow thank you for sharing some of your personal story. Not from the standpoint that "that supports one side over another in this thread" but from the standpoint that it takes courage to kind of throw one's self out there on a forum and it's always a risk to share personal details with strangers. I admire that and I hope it makes us all less of strangers to each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2490
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to second mcmasters on this, however, it might be safer to discuss those kinds of things via private message. This chat room is open to the general public, not just us webcomickers.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2490
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really do appreciate this forum, where we can have discussions like this with a minimal amount of trolling. You people are all great.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 755

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas and mcmasters, thank you for the praise and warnings, but neither is necessary. As long as I am volunteering and you are not prying, I see no issue.

Look at it from my perspective. No one tells men and women that sharing their gender is a private issue. As a matter of fact it is expected social protocol that you define yourself as one or the other, publicly and almost continuously. Even our language is very dependent on gender, with pronouns like he and she ("zie" is what I use) and possessive pronouns his or her (I use "zir", since "its" feels too dehumanizing). Men and women casually talk about their gender-dependent biological functions (most prominently pregnancy, attraction and urination) without any fear.

I am and should be no different beyond the fact that my biological gender isn't male or female. And yet, I am expected to lie and pick one or the other as a course of matter. I can't in good conscience, as a Christian, live like that. As I said before, I am operating on the basis of my primary expressed gender traits in terms of how I understand my faith, so that's where I am at now. I wrote a comic blog about this years ago, and although the character is a very exaggerated dramatization, the sentiment zie expressed is very much in line with where I am at.

If I continue to pass as female as I did for most of my life, then I am just as guilty of perpetuating ignorance about the fact that gender and sexual orientation aren't as neatly definable issues as people expect them to be, as is the biggest religious fanatic. I normally don't bring this type of thing up, but in this discussion I feel it is important. I am a perfect example of someone who has an atypical form of sexual/gender expression and could be adversely affected by gender/sexual-orientation based civil marriage laws due to potential unintended consequences.

Sexual identity and gender are surprisingly misunderstood to this day, and it's not even universally agreed upon as to what exactly is male or female. For example, if you are a gay male in Muslim Iran, you are considered to be a deformed female in need of medical help and you will be given a free sex-change operation. In the conservative Christian portion of the United States, the same gay male will be considered to be morally flawed. An European atheist who works as a scientist will look as the gay male as just a gay male. In Asia and many Amerindian cultures, the gay male will be deemed a separate gender all together. In Chucki society the gay male will be deemed a holy being and pressured to become a shaman. For this reason, I don't feel like scientific understanding and cultural consensus are sufficient for a melting pot society such as the United States to legislate marriage based on expressed gender and sexual orientation. As I said before, the ideal would be that marriage be deemed solely a religious and personal matter and that the government stay out all together.

Anyway, back to Superman.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice wrote:
I think the point marscaleb was trying to make, as erroneous as his statistics may have been, was that there are levels and degrees to what we consider "marriage" in the United States, and various applicable definitions.


I'm a college student. We're made to hold to the research-everything rule and having somewhat thought out arguments and facts before writing anything. Having figures that skewed and even grammar and spelling mistakes are damaging to the argument. I know I need to give lee-way because it's the internet, but there would be a lot less garbage like Fox News out there if more people researched.

As for the discussion on gender and superman, Kudos Vas for the post. It reiterates many things that I've learned already and is an informative first hand perspective in the issues.

And for Superman, I already said my thoughts. It's a bit dumb in my opinion to boycott before seeing if he's even going to try and push an agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.