Polar Opposite

[sleigh]

Orson Scott Card on the horror of same-sex marriage.

Almost needless to say, we don't agree. Card's bottom line: same-sex marriage is the end of democracy, and justifies violent overthrow of the government. "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."

Marriage has only one definition, and it is in Card's personal dictionary and nowhere else.

Comments

[lauriemann.livejournal.com]

If a Muslim person said this, he'd probably be arrested as a terrorist.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

If a liberal of any religion said this, he'd be arrested. But rightwingers who make open threats against other people and the government ... will Card be getting a radio talk show?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

He'd certainly be on a watch list...

[maiac.livejournal.com]

I used to think of Scott Card as a friend. Then he did a swan dive into the deep end of the homophobia pool.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that he's one of the (few) people whose writing I can't read anymore because my knowledge of his personality overshadows the prose.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

I can't read his writing anymore, either, because I'm so appalled by the change in him. What happened to the man who opjected so strongly to the theocrats that he created the Secular Humanist Revival Meeting?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there was any water in that pool, either.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

There are really spectacular logical fallacies in this one, besides the obvious basic premise. Every time I hear someone say that gay marriage threatens "the institution of marriage" I wait to hear how but never do. Even they seem to realize that the whole "no begetting children" thing doesn't work because they you'd have to ban childless heterosexual couples too. So I searched for it in Card's essay and this appears to be his rationale for why marriage needs to be heterosexual: "When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage." So, there we have it: The reason why you need universal heterosexual marriage is so that it can be affirmed that heterosexual marriage is universal. Right...

[sethb.livejournal.com]

My personal favorite is his claim that the government can't redefine "marriage"; therefore, it still consists of one man and four women, so he's in rebellion against Utah for outlawing that.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Right. The rhetorical leaps in his argument are truly stunning.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

See my LJ on Card's essay, A response to Orson Scott Card (http://barondave.livejournal.com/170135.html). Terrorism aside, his arguments don't hold water. Of course, sphincter conservatives aren't speaking to the head, but to the clenched buttocks.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

OK, that made me spurt my tea through my nose!

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

I often refer to these folks as "constipated." Seems we think alike on this matter.

Anne

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"The reason why you need universal heterosexual marriage is so that it can be affirmed that heterosexual marriage is universal."

That's the best summary of the "defense of marriage" fallacy I've ever seen.

[greenmtnboy18.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

People make me... crazy.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I was having trouble sleeping last night, because part of my brain was trying to compose a blog on the topic, "Conservatives are the real terrorists." It started with the concept that most modern terrorists are in fact members of conservative factions; certainly this was true of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph and the 9/11 pilots, suicide bombers in the Middle East, and that guy in Tennessee yesterday. What we really need to fear is people telling us what we should think, especially our government. I wasn't getting very far with it, but this ties right into the argument.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"If the government tolerates perceptions of reality that differ from mine, that government is WRONG and must be brought down."

Very brittle thinkers, those people.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

If you're not reading David Neiwert's blog Orcinus (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/), you should be. He writes lucidly and insightfully about the White Supremacists, Dominionists, and that ilk. It's scary reading, but better to know than to be unprepared.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

Maybe. I have trouble with any dedicated political blog.

I want to get a bumper sticker that says: "Republicans: Join the party of Old White Men." Really, OWM (Old White Man) should become a pejorative acronym, IMO.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

*sad nod*

It is for statements like these that I have stopped buying his books. I may still read them, but I do not buy them.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I can't even read him anymore, I'm afraid (more my failing than his...)

[the-corbie.livejournal.com]

I stopped buying OSC's books because of his views. I stopped reading them because of the catastrophic decline in quality. Compared to his early work, he hasn't written anything worth reading in a number of years now.

[casaubon.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't he start by making divorce illegal and then move on to banning things that only harm marriage in the depths of his twisted mind?

Also:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

but he's managed to phrase his fulminations in terms that don't actually advocate violent rebellion, so I reckon he's safe.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

While he doesn't openly advocate violence against the government, the phrasing is telling: "...it (the government) is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government..."

[casaubon.livejournal.com]

He couches it in terms of a question - "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: ..." which seems to me to be a rhetorical device designed to skirt the "don't tell people to rebel" law.

I'd better add that I don't believe for a minute that he's actually advocating violent revolution. I reckon he's just a bigoted blowhard in love with his own voice and that if anyone handed him a gun and asked him to help destroy the government, he'd run a mile.

Also, locking people up for writing stuff is probably a bad idea. I'd rather have people like him spouting rubbish in an op-ed than printing nasty little samizdats in cellars.

[madtruk.livejournal.com]

Ugh.

I feel like being disgusted isn't enough. Perhaps a good old fashioned book-burning?

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

I tend to feel like a boycott would likely be more effective than a book burning, and morally more acceptable.

[daedala.livejournal.com]

I think burning one's own personal copies of books is fine. I've never gotten around to it, but there are several I can think of that I'd like to do that with.

[elialshadowpine]

I've never burnt a book, but there's been one or two I've been so disgusted with that they "accidentally" fell into the tub. >.>

[bram452.livejournal.com]

The thing is, it's not his dictionary that he's reading from, it's his bible (whether his bible actually says that or not).

There's some confusion in that marriage is both 1) a civil contract and 2) a religious ceremony. He'll bring down any government that doesn't honor and respect his religious convictions, and I'll fight one that doesn't recognize that 1) != 2).

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"There's some confusion in that marriage is both 1) a civil contract and 2) a religious ceremony."

This is a large part of the problem when dealing with theocrats. They don't make that distinction. Everything is defined by their religion, including the government. The role of government, in their view, should be to enforce the laws of their church.

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

Everything is defined by their religion, including the government.

Getting away from that was the reason we have a United States of America. No divine rights of kings, separation of church and state, all (hu)mens created equal and all that.

Why do these people hate America?

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

And the part that always gets me is that Judaism, the religion they're basing this concept on, says that marriage is a secular contract first, and a religious ceremony second. The signing of the contract is a notable step in the process. (Yes, today they sign both the Hebrew document and the state papers at the same time.) The same section they're quoting also allows for multiple spouses and other things that most folks like Card conveniently ignore.

Working out the house rules for one's Judeo-Christian-Islamic sect is a lot like working out the house rules for one's favorite RPG, from what I can tell. Is that good or bad? :-)

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

I didn't know of his views. I actually have a couple of his books (says the woman who does not describe herself as a SF fan). Well, I won't support him by purchasing anything else. Makes me feel quesy when I hear extreme views that are so hurtful toward others.


A.

[elialshadowpine]

I haven't read this particular article, and I don't think I want to since my blood pressure is bad off enough as it is. I've read previous rantings from Card about homosexuality, and that he's apparently gotten that much worse is enough for me.

/sighs and tosses yet another author on the "do not buy" list.