John Irving On Opposition To Gay Marriage
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- www.strombo.com
John Irving's new novel 'In One Person' tackles one of his fundamental themes: intolerance of sexual difference. So we asked John what he thought of this campaign ad from Gov. Rick Perry used during his bid for the Republican nomination...
his argument makes sence to me. hes basically saying that he supports free choice and opinion. these people against gay marriage and abbortion have no stake in it because they arnt gay, or they dont need an abbortion.
i support the right to choose.
As a former fetus, I oppose abortion.
"This is Canada you can say whatever you want." That didnt age well.
Yes you can as long as it is not hate speech. Of course why would anyone defend hate speech is beyond me.
@@drwatsonca6945 I’m against any hate speech, but what concerns me is any government that dictates what the definition of hate speech is. Slippery slope.
Such a powerful argument, I can see how that solves so many moral problems.
Love this man and his writing.
You guys should read In One Person by John Irving
everyone can support their own ideologies individually and in groups either it be back by religious beliefs or personal ones etc. But once it is created with intention to degrade someone else's ideology and beliefs , thennnn it is wrongful I believe. Otherwise everyone should be able to live respectfully and in harmony. Unfortunately, life isn't too dandy..
Right i think it misses the basis of the debate which asks at what point does life start.
It’s called morality. You should try it
@brianriggs2378 Could you expand on that, please??
That is not a rational argument. You might as well say,"If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave." Morality touches nearly every sphere of life. You can't escape choosing your beliefs and how you will live in this world. You either believe God sets the design standards for how we live or you believe humans set the standard, according to vogue renditions of the day. It seems John Irving believes he is intellectually superior to anyone that has a different perspective than him, that there is no rational argument for believing life begins at conception, or believing marriage and sex have wider societal implications beyond the two parties involved. If love is love, than a father should be able to marry his daughter, a brother a sister, a woman should have the right to marry five husbands. I wonder if John Irving would approve of those scenarios, or would he suddenly draw a random line...according to what?
The difference lies in consent. Marriage is a mutual, consensual agreement to accomplish the same goal "be in a partnership together." Marriage does not impact those who aren't getting married, it only impacts those who choose to do it. There is no consent in slavery, unless of course you're really kinky and you and your "slave" like to get off that way. It wasn't too long ago that brothers and sisters were getting married to preserve the bloodline... yes, Christian brothers and sisters. You see, "morals" are not decided by God, they are decided by society. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church said it was moral to torture Jews until death.... God is great when everyone agrees on what "God" is and what he wants LOL but that's a rare circumstance.
@@anourtine6204 Well, I was referring to his comment on abortion. Science proves it is a human being that is being systematically torn apart in the womb and thrown into canisters outside abortion ("Mengele") clinics to be incinerated. That is sinisterly close to what the Nazis did to people they didn't deem human enough to live. And in slavery time in the US, African Americans weren't human enough to be free, etc. The main question is: who is human enough to have Constitutional rights? As far as same sex marriage, if it's only about civil union and children are not adopted in the process, then it would be a matter of consent. But...babies are adopted without their consent. And taking the consent argument further, one would have to conclude anyone can marry anyone. A man should be able to marry five women if they consent and vice versa. Lastly, there have been evil things done in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't make the actions Christian in nature. Jesus' own words in Matthew 7:21-23, speaks to this issue. Also, Christians acknowledge that they have a sin problem. They aren't perfect in any way. That's why they need a savior. It's all about Grace. Peace.
@@h.a.s.7336 Burt this is exactly why minors aren't allowed to have sexual relations with people older than 18. Children can't consent, babies can't consent, fetuses can't consent. It is up to the parents to decide what happens to their children... now, this doesn't mean you have the right to kill your five year-old child. however, in the case of abortion, it is up to the state to determine exactly what constitutes "life" vs "non life." People like to think that life is a clearly delineated thing, but it's really not. Bundles of cells are alive, but so are sperm cells and egg cells. That means every time you masturbate you kill 80 million babies, but no one blinks an eye there. More people choose to believe that life begins with fertilization...but that would be an arbitrary human animation of what we want to perceive as "life" rather than an actual human being capable of dependency that can exist without life support. A heartbeat doesn't even constitute "life" if brain activity is null and the body is not capable of living on it's own. Essentially, humans have the desire to animate that which we love. How many times have you heard owners say about their dogs "look he's smiling!" We have a tendency to give life to that which we want to be alive, and vice versa, dehumanize that which we do not want to be alive. In the case of abortion, the state gives parameters to people about what it constitutes as "life." Breech birth, or late pregnancy abortion is almost always illegal. If you believe your fertilized egg is alive, don't get an abortion... no one is asking you to LOL.
@@anourtine6204 I never mentioned a fertilized egg being the basis for a law against abortion. I can see how someone, who does not believe human beings are made in the image of God - Imago Dei, would deem something that does not "look like a human" as a throw away blob. I don't hold that belief. I believe human beings are made in God's image, but also believe all life is sacred. We don't mistreat animals or wantonly kill them because even their breath of life is sacred. It's a lower life form, but still must be respected and cherished, even as they sustain us. You mention that most abortion killing children that "look like humans" is illegal. Unfortunately, that is not true. Partial birth abortion is not rare. It is legal. (And now infanticide is legal in New York and Virginia.) Partial birth abortion dismembers children, pulling their arms and legs off as they are suctioned out of the womb. Planned Parenthood has already been caught selling these body parts. Canisters outside of abortion clinics are full of baby body parts that "look like a human being." It's horrific. And I actually grew up with a dog that smiled when my father came home from work every day. Our dog was so happy, she gave a unique smile revealing her teeth when he came home. Dogs and other animals can communicate in far more sophisticated ways than we give them credit for...
I'm sorry did you really compare gay people marrying to A FATHER MARRYING HIS DAUGHTER??? Egads, man!
Although his argument about gay marriage is good but its application to abortions is wrong. If someone believes abortion is murder, it's like telling them "if you don't like murder, don't kill people"
Probably one of the better arguments about issues such as this.
either way, i welcome the dialogue. thats the great thing about differences. it opens up discussion and forum, and we get to improve as a society. there is no wrong or right answer, but there is a sensible one.
John Irving the man who says so many without saying anything at all… pointless really. But he’s entitled to his opinion just like any Homo sapiens in this planet
Refute something he said. I'll wait.
john irving, you legend.
Should have added more punctuation. My point is liberalism which is making a lot of these issues okay (euthenasia, abortion, legal prostitution etc) is terrible as a dominant ideology. It questions everything and stands for nothing.
I am 80 this year and my little book group is "making" me read "Garp" ... and ...that is after Lolita a year ago👾 I was born with female body and chemistry et al. during WW2. Begot because of my dad's being drafted. Huge events I had absolutely NO SAY about and that's how the world according to me began. Now I see the mushroom cloud of NARCISSISM and "me 1st" replacing "me too." Egads, SHUT UP!
We all must remember that one day we will stand before God in judgement and will we be judged accordingly. You will not be able to talk your way out of it. Unless you accept Jesus Christ
Prove it.
It also needs to be noted that he actually was upset by the abortion and gay rights issues being grouped together by republicans? Did none of you catch that?
His opinion on gay marriage and abortion being pro is simply a coincidence, not a "logical" extension.
So do I, but I think you're missing the point of what I was saying.
"Sick Perry."
as much as i am against polygamy and incest, i can't deny your point. people should be free to choose. period. seeing as how i don't support polygamy and incest, i personally won't engage in either of those. someone who does, however, ideally, shold be able to.
"If you don't like polygamy, don't marry more than one person".
"If you don't like incest, don't sleep with your family members".
Are these the next dominoes to drop, based on this argument?
Nice false equivalence.
I was saying that his argument doesn't validate his statement.
I'm not anti liberalism, or free thinking, i just think we need to draw lines somewhere. People are like children, we need boundries!
I think every woman should have the right to choose abortion, and gay people should have the right to be married. That said, telling someone opposed to abortion "well don't get one then" is a fallacious argument. I mean, if someone is opposed to murder, you wouldn't just say "well don't murder then".
5 years later ... (sorry!) but abortion and gay marriage are two personal choices. Murder is not, and has been illegal for aeons.
I wrote that a long time ago, i think it was in response to someone else's comment. I thnk there was a comparison to two issues that were at one time cultural taboos..
He conflates moral claims with preference claims. The reductio ad absurdum of what he argues is obvious: If you don't like murder, then don't commit one.
***** No, I'm being 'dead' serious ;)
Aris Totelian His argument is on the same level as: Don't like spousal abuse? Then don't beat one.
I enjoyed John Irving's many novels in my younger years. But, like much of the artistic, liberal "intellectual" type, their opinions on abortions, gay marriage and Republicans are trite and predictable.
In order for them to justify abortion-- the killing of helpless, innocent human babies--thwy had to deceive the public that developing human fetuses were just clumps of cells. But ultrasound came along and proved them wrong, however, they would not accept the indisputable conclusion of science. Then, they say that it's "health care" for the woman, though more than of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women who use it primarily as birth control multiple times in their life. Btw, what about the health of the developing human baby? Anybody cares for them?
On "gay marriage." The political gay activists sold their movement as a struggle for societal acceptance and equal rights. No one, except for a few and ever decreasing right-wing fundamentalists, objected and accepted. Anti-gay laws were passed to protect them. Then, they had to demand and encroach on territory that people of faith considered was bewteen a man, a woman and their God. The gay lobby could've had all the rights of like-sex union as one between a man and a woman. But they couldn't respect others' strongly held faiths enough to not invade it. It's like being put up in someone's home as a guess for a short stay, then demanding the host to make a permanent room for them to reside in. No one would agree to such unreasonable demand without fear of being labelled "phobic" of some sort, right?
Don't sell people on one thing, then bait and switch them with something else. It's called deception, and it's a tactic these left-wing activists know and deploy all too well!
haha yeah i probably am then :P feel free to elaborate if u want to discuss it a bit.
I dont agree with what he said I think people shouldnt be expected to stand by while injustice is being done.
Yes fallacious indeed. However I respectfully disagree with the position on abortion.
I do believe this person has no idea what it means to not like abortion or gay marriage. I don't like abortion because it is MURDER! What if I were to say, "You don't like murder, don't do it." See how stupid that sounds?
I honestly thought this was Gus Hiddink:/
you're probably right. but i see it as Darwin at work. if these people make stupid decisions, they're going to have to accept the consequences of them. yes, incest is a stupid idea. yes, i think (again, my opinion) polygamy is a stupid idea. there are a lot of things that are bad ideas in our society. it isn't our place to control someone else's life and say they cannot do something unless it gets to the point where it IS affecting society, or people other than the parties originally involved.
I am so gay divorce,thats when the party starts
Makes too much sense
How about, if someone is against murder - oops, excuse me, - abortion, then they don't have to pay for it with their taxes. Can we agree on that much? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Freedom
based
Yea that is the worst argument ever, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
CBC would never give a platform to a Conservative thinker or writer...not without preachy commentary before or after.
ur entitiled to your opinion :)
Your missing the point saint, those examples you listed have absolutely no bearing on your life - and in a truly free society wouldn't be an issue. If two consenting adult siblings wish to marry, let 'em - it has absolutely no impact on you, no bearing on your way of life, as a human being in any way. Stop pretending it does. The same for polygamy. Consenting adults need to be treated like adults, not children.
The "ick" factor, the part that grosses you out should never, ever, be a reason to
Incest is very common throughout history, but becuase it's frowned upon people don't talk about it. Do you think there were a lot of people who admited they were gay in the 50s? there were way more that kept it to themselves. My point is that it's not as simple as, every issue should be okay in society becuase it doesn't hurt me as an individual is problematic. Because a lot of these issues do hurt others in a roundabout way ie. euthenasia.
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one [but allow those who want one]" Could we apply that consistently to other forms of homicide, still allowing people the freedom of choice to exercise it, after all we are respecting freedom and liberty. Just... not for all; especially those youngest in our human community.