Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
From: hoey@ai.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Date: 11 Jul 90 18:41:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Orson Scott Card on "Hypocrites of Homosexuality"

In the *Sunstone* article (as quoted by Tom Maddox), Card wrote

>This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
>Laws against homosexual behavior should 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.

ma...@dgsi.UUCP (Mark Bernstein) writes:

>... The laws Card referred to are LDS laws, and the people he refers to as
>hypocrites are those who claim to be both actively homosexual and believing
>Mormons.  I don't think he said anything about the world in general outside
>his church.

t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Perhaps the problem is that you don't know the word "polity"?

Perhaps the problem is that Tim doesn't know the word ``polity''.
I thought I did, but just to make sure, I looked it up.  The
dictionaries I checked make it clear that ``polity'' may refer either
to civil government or to ecclesiastical government, the latter being
the laws of a church.  So as far as the word ``polity'' goes, the
passage in question is ambiguous with respect to Mark's position.

The appositive phrase ``the community of citizens at large'' may be
seen as clarifying the matter.  Still, I suppose that a sufficiently
weasely mind could interpret this to refer to a community of lay LDS
members, and that only church laws are being proposed.  I think that
interpretation is very strained, but Card can be very subtle when he
wants to be.  Writing on theology to a group that is markedly more
conservative than he could tempt him to use language that leads the
reader to overestimate the conservatism of his argument.

There are four other uses of the word ``polity'' in the essay, and all
seem to refer to civil government.  I would still feel a lot better
about disparaging Card's views if he had used a term like ``civil'' or
``secular'' that would more unambiguously extend his argument beyond
the LDS polity.

I am also very uncomfortable with Card's lack of specificity on the
enforcement of such laws.  He asks that they be enforced only to
deter ``those who flagrant violate society's regulation of sexual
behavior.''  I would like to know just how flagrant he's talking
about.  After all, there are laws about public decency that regulate
both heterosexual and homosexual acts if they are sufficiently
flagrant.  The question is what sanctions he proposes against
homosexual behavior that would not extend to heterosexual behavior.

Make no mistake:  My best reading of the essay is that Card calls
for the state to impose sanctions against some forms of homosexual
behavior.  However, I also believe that he is doing his best to avoid
saying what behavior and what sanctions.  I think he is trying to
appear to support one position to the Mormons, while reserving some
deniability for the rest of us.

Dan