ellen_datlow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ellen_datlow) wrote2008-07-29 08:35 pm
ellen_datlow) wrote2008-07-29 08:35 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I really hate saying anything bad about anybody, but I really *do* wish he'd shut up about this already. Yeah, Mr. Card. We get that you don't like gay marriage already. So may I recommend not marrying a man?
ETA: Also:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
What bugs me about arguments like this is that people's rights should never be decided by majority rule.
ETA: Also:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
What bugs me about arguments like this is that people's rights should never be decided by majority rule.
Not to belabor the obvious, but why does anyone give a damn? My worry is that he's writing these diatribes solely to garner the attention from disillusioned former fans, because they're the only individuals willing to read such a turgid mess. Seriously, folks: if you know an article is from Card, ignore it, and maybe the publications that run his work will notice that he's suddenly getting four hits per month, and three of those are from him.
Ah, the same old arguments, trotted out time and time again...
Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
It always comes back to this cartoon I found ages ago...
Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
It always comes back to this cartoon I found ages ago...
You know, I notice that he doesn't link to his articles on the Mormon Time from his own website. Then again, I saw this quote in an article he did link to where he begged McCain not to choose Mitt Romney for VP:
"I'm a Democrat who voted for Obama in the primaries."
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-07-20-1.html
What a strange, disturbed man... Best off sticking to fiction where no one has to know just how crazy he is.
"I'm a Democrat who voted for Obama in the primaries."
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-07-20-1.html
What a strange, disturbed man... Best off sticking to fiction where no one has to know just how crazy he is.
It's kind of ironic that he would be so pro 'traditional marriage' considering his religion is best known for being polygamists.
the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.
Oh, who does he think he's kidding? What, when the schools talk abstinence or whatever it's not propaganda, but when they talk about this, it is? If he's labeling this propaganda, then he should at least fairly recognize that everything else schools advocate should be branded the same. He can advocate whatever he wants, but he shouldn't try to cloak it in his stance being right and other viewpoints being propaganda. *rolls eyes*
I lost patience and couldn't even finish reading it, for fear I'd go on another rant about Orson Scott Card. Which I don't have time for tonight. *sigh*
Oh, who does he think he's kidding? What, when the schools talk abstinence or whatever it's not propaganda, but when they talk about this, it is? If he's labeling this propaganda, then he should at least fairly recognize that everything else schools advocate should be branded the same. He can advocate whatever he wants, but he shouldn't try to cloak it in his stance being right and other viewpoints being propaganda. *rolls eyes*
I lost patience and couldn't even finish reading it, for fear I'd go on another rant about Orson Scott Card. Which I don't have time for tonight. *sigh*
I find myself cracking my knuckles when I read one of Card's little rants.
All of my protection and earning power will be devoted to my wife and her children, and by God I have the right to trust that those children will be mine.
Staggering stuff. In one article he conflates sexuality with procreation (sorry, I do it for fun, Mr Card), implies that marriage ought to be about property rights, argues that the government is the enemy of marriage when extending it, says that all life is about grandchildren (I don't have any yet! I'm not alive!) and, most ludicrously, that biological imperatives trump laws. This after telling us that "men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating." Why wouldn't Mr Card see the contradiction here?
I detest his political and moral views, but he's allowed to have them. What puzzles me, though, is how he gets away with such poor logic.
I detest his political and moral views, but he's allowed to have them. What puzzles me, though, is how he gets away with such poor logic.
He's a misguided and sad little man. You'd think someone who produced such smart work (once upon a time) would be able to put together a coherent argument about something like this.
Part of me finds it extremely sad, because it's such a betrayal of himself as a writer, of his *characters*. I stopped reading Card years ago, but up through the early 90s at least all his novels were about the monsters created by traditional, patriarchal families. All the children are abused, one way or another, and their parents are at least complicit. And the horrible monsters called "buggers" turn out to be people you can relate to; the family you choose is more important than your family of blood.
Card slew his literary children as Abraham would have slain Isaac, because he thought G*d was telling him to -- and that's a bone-chilling thought for any writer. You could make a tragedy out of it, but I don't know if it counts if the protagonist doesn't *know* he's in a tragedy.
Card slew his literary children as Abraham would have slain Isaac, because he thought G*d was telling him to -- and that's a bone-chilling thought for any writer. You could make a tragedy out of it, but I don't know if it counts if the protagonist doesn't *know* he's in a tragedy.
"it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction."
If by all of human history you mean a handful of times and places, then yeah, he's right :-). And his whole screed about the "two premises" is laughable to anyone who, you know, studies human societies and behavior. Man, he needs to read an anthropology textbook . . . . Then again, it would disagree with him so it must be more of that "propaganda."
But this kind of hyperbole is exactly designed to foreclose any debate. There is only one story, one path, and those who deviate are. . . deviant!!
If by all of human history you mean a handful of times and places, then yeah, he's right :-). And his whole screed about the "two premises" is laughable to anyone who, you know, studies human societies and behavior. Man, he needs to read an anthropology textbook . . . . Then again, it would disagree with him so it must be more of that "propaganda."
But this kind of hyperbole is exactly designed to foreclose any debate. There is only one story, one path, and those who deviate are. . . deviant!!
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in Massachusetts and New York, giving legal recognition to "abolition" is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
--Orson Scott Card, 1800
My god, will no one do anything about this heretic Joseph Smith and the filthy, depraved rabble that follows him around, defiling every Christian woman in sight? Are there not enough bullets in all of Missouri?
--Orson Scott Card, 1839
The first and greatest threat from our new president's decision to empanc- ARGH, MY GROIN!
--Orson Scott Card, 1862
--Orson Scott Card, 1800
My god, will no one do anything about this heretic Joseph Smith and the filthy, depraved rabble that follows him around, defiling every Christian woman in sight? Are there not enough bullets in all of Missouri?
--Orson Scott Card, 1839
The first and greatest threat from our new president's decision to empanc- ARGH, MY GROIN!
--Orson Scott Card, 1862
Oh my! How ignorant
I have said it before and I will say it again -
I have a simple solution to this whole "gay marriage" debacle. States need to do away with state sponsored "marriage". Any union, be it gay, straight, or poly, that wants state benefits that are applicable for such a union should apply for a civil union. States would not be allowed to discriminate in any way based on moral/religious grounds. Any union that wants the sanction of their particular Deity should apply to a church for a marriage. And the churches would have the ability to discriminate based upon their particular beliefs.
I have said it before and I will say it again -
I have a simple solution to this whole "gay marriage" debacle. States need to do away with state sponsored "marriage". Any union, be it gay, straight, or poly, that wants state benefits that are applicable for such a union should apply for a civil union. States would not be allowed to discriminate in any way based on moral/religious grounds. Any union that wants the sanction of their particular Deity should apply to a church for a marriage. And the churches would have the ability to discriminate based upon their particular beliefs.
For just this reason, Orson Scott Bigot has been on my "no-buy" list since the late '90s. It continues to appall and amaze me that someone who writes for a medium that demands open minds has such a closed one himself.
I just skimmed to find the crazy.
"And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming."
Wow.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy."
Main Entry:
mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Looks like at least three, maybe six definitions to me. Merriam-Webster, the Great Enemy of our times. OSC, sharpen your sword!
"And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming."
Wow.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy."
Main Entry:
mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Looks like at least three, maybe six definitions to me. Merriam-Webster, the Great Enemy of our times. OSC, sharpen your sword!
I am so tempted to go through and replace all instances of "gay" or "homosexual," etc., with "slave" or "woman" or...
I don't see myself reading anything of his ever again. A shame. I really love Speaker for the Dead. For someone who writes so beautifully about understanding the Other, he is a bigoted, unempathetic little man in real life.
I don't see myself reading anything of his ever again. A shame. I really love Speaker for the Dead. For someone who writes so beautifully about understanding the Other, he is a bigoted, unempathetic little man in real life.
Old man embodys old perspective. It is sad, but some people - even in scifi - cannot let go of tradition to gain perspective into future works.
His political argument (i.e., that this is not a matter for courts to determine) has some potential merit, but then he goes on to say that it's not a matter for the legislature to determine either. That's nonsensical, as marriage is a human institution, and can, therefore, be redefined by human action.
I'll grant him that human biology is a fact of nature. But marriage does not arise (or does not arise solely) from biology.
As for whether courts should be deciding things like this, that's very old ground that people have been re-tracing at least since Griswold v. Connecticut. He didn't add anything new to the argument, and it's silly to say that the MA and CA opinions are "dangerous for democracy" as if Griswold had never been decided.
I'll grant him that human biology is a fact of nature. But marriage does not arise (or does not arise solely) from biology.
As for whether courts should be deciding things like this, that's very old ground that people have been re-tracing at least since Griswold v. Connecticut. He didn't add anything new to the argument, and it's silly to say that the MA and CA opinions are "dangerous for democracy" as if Griswold had never been decided.
There was a strong undercurrent of homoeroticism in certain of OSC early novels. I was aware of it. Perhaps he wasn't.
Rick Bowes
Rick Bowes
I know Bill's been shopping it around for a few years. He read from it several years ago at KGB.
Some excerpts of an earlier draft have been podcast--and it's still available through his site, where he says:
"A revised draft of William Shunn's memoir The Accidental Terrorist: My Adventures as a Foot Soldier in the Mormon Army is at last complete and delivered to his agent for submission. The book chronicles his months as an LDS missionary in Canada, which culminated with his arrest, conviction, and deportation for an unfortunate incident involving a commercial passenger jet."
William Shunn (http://www.shunn.net/)
Some excerpts of an earlier draft have been podcast--and it's still available through his site, where he says:
"A revised draft of William Shunn's memoir The Accidental Terrorist: My Adventures as a Foot Soldier in the Mormon Army is at last complete and delivered to his agent for submission. The book chronicles his months as an LDS missionary in Canada, which culminated with his arrest, conviction, and deportation for an unfortunate incident involving a commercial passenger jet."
William Shunn (http://www.shunn.net/)
I can't bring myself to read any of his books. At least hate is a righteous emotion, it's something you can fight against. But it's not that he hates homosexuals, it's that he pities us, and I cannot give someone the respect of reading their work who pities me for no damn reason but for what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom. Perhaps when he's dead I'll read those books, but not until then, not while he's still spreading this filth:
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
It gets most disturbing about a quarter of the page down. Search for "swift but mild punishment," what he advocates for young children engaging in same-sex experimentation.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
It gets most disturbing about a quarter of the page down. Search for "swift but mild punishment," what he advocates for young children engaging in same-sex experimentation.
The article is nearly hysterical. There's stuff about how gay activists of the 80s promised they wouldn't touch marriage, and he calls gayfolk "genetic mix ups". Classy.
Page 1 of 2