sleigh: (Default)
([personal profile] sleigh Jul. 30th, 2008 07:04 am)
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.

From: [identity profile] lauriemann.livejournal.com


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

From: [identity profile] 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.


From: [identity profile] 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...

From: [identity profile] 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.
ext_13495: (annewings)

From: [identity profile] 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.

From: [identity profile] 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.

From: [identity profile] madtruk.livejournal.com


Ugh.

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

From: [identity profile] 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).

From: [identity profile] 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: (Default)

From: [personal profile] 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.
.