Orson Scott Card on marriage...

[Venkman]

...and "gay marriage".


http://mormontimes.com/print.php?storyID=1586

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Venkman

...and "gay marriage".


http://mormontimes.com/print.php?storyID=1586

That is a scary dude. I didn't even have to read the second to last paragraph to reach that conclusion.

The article is all over the place, and he doesn't appear to place a premium on establishing a logical nexus between gay marriage and the destruction of marriage as an institution for heterosexual couples. Indeed, he lists many things that heterosexuals are doing to destroy the institution of marriage which, in my opinion, have a far more detrimental impact on marriage than gay marriage ever will.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

...and "gay marriage".


http://mormontimes.com/print.php?storyID=1586

He should stick to writing trashy novels. The article is nothing but a mass of contraditions. It begins with a diatribe against the California Supreme Court for impairing democracy (conveniently ignoring the Prop. 8 vote), then follows with this gem:

"Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. 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."

He doesn't want democracy, he wants a theocracy.

He promises his next column will be about the science of homosexuality. Oh boy, that should be interesting, Orson Scott Card fantasy novelist expounding on the science of homosexuality.

He's using every age old rationale to justify his opposition to gays, without any sense of consistency or cohesion. He's really pissed that you can't say gays are freaks and not be called homophobe. Well, here goes, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe freak. A gay hater. And a pretty darn angry one at that.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Indeed, he lists many things that heterosexuals are doing to destroy the institution of marriage which, in my opinion, have a far more detrimental impact on marriage than gay marriage ever will.

Another way (of many) he's internally inconsistent. As I noted in an earlier post, heterosexuals have already launched deadly assaults on marriage (no fault divorce, etc.), and it seems to be surviving.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That is a scary dude. I didn't even have to read the second to last paragraph to reach that conclusion.

The article is all over the place, and he doesn't appear to place a premium on establishing a logical nexus between gay marriage and the destruction of marriage as an institution for heterosexual couples. Indeed, he lists many things that heterosexuals are doing to destroy the institution of marriage which, in my opinion, have a far more detrimental impact on marriage than gay marriage ever will.

LOL. He begins with a diatribe against the California Supreme Court abridging democracy, then ends with the Hitlarian:

"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: 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.

"Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."

He's certifiable.

[MikeWaters]

I don't read him. He's the embarrassing kind of apologist.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I saw that this morning and cringed. Every now and then he writes a decent article. But this is some of his worst work.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't read him. He's the embarrassing kind of apologist.

Enders Game and Enders Shadow were fun books. I was not aware that he fashioned himself as an authority on the science of homosexuality. He should go back to writing fiction, he was at least decent at it.