To those to of you who haven’t read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott card, warning: two spoilers follow.
Spoiler 1: Your childhood was incomplete.
Spoiler 2: You know that part where Ender fights that kid Bonzo in the showers and kicks him so hard in the nuts that he kills him?
Well, Card basically did the same thing to logic and decency last week when he tried to convince the American Citizens in his thrall (myself once among them) to invoke their right of revolution and overthrow the government to stop gay marriage from being legalized.
That’s right, people. The Mormon guy who wrote all those books about the innocence of a child winning out over war and hatred wants us to raise arms against any queers who feel like expressing their love legally. I mean, I understand a devout Mormon having some issues with gayness, but when your brain tells you that it’s an important enough issue to divide the country in a bloody coup, it’s time to get a new brain.
I’m sure there’ll be a whole cavalcade of comments following this post pointing out the merits of homosexuality, its moral deficiency in the eyes of God, and stuff about boobies touching and wieners in butts. So I figured, rather than try to pre-emptively defuse the situation like I usually do, I’ll just say to hell with it and let you know how I really feel. If you totally disagree, feel free to comment, we can agree to disagree, and you can come back in a few days and read something funny I wrote about a celebrity pooping themselves.
HOW I REALLY FEEL:
Orson Scott Card, you are—and I say this with the reservation of someone who read Speaker for the Dead and wept on a city bus—the worst. I will never buy or read your books again, and I am withdrawing my membership from the Card Superfriends Fan Team and Party Brigade (Sorry, Chet and Dale).
The Mormon’s I’ve known (all lovely people) have always been particularly impervious to logic, but it’s all I’ve got so here I go. Mr. Card, you are as evil, and will one day be as reviled by any sane individual, as an 18th-century slave owner.
Let me explain. Throughout the history of America, and indeed in the course of any developing culture, the universal historical trend (with some notable, but temporary deviances) has been towards expanding rights for an expanding number of people. Women couldn’t vote, now they can. Blacks were treated like pack animals, now they get to live in the inner city and some of them own nice cars. The point is, PROGRESS.
There is no question, absolutely none at all, that you are fighting a battle you can’t win. In a hundred years, flamboyant gay guys will be getting married in fabulous dresses on your grave, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
But worse, when that day finally comes, you will be classed with all those others who stood in the way of expanding rights and humanity: the Ku Klux Klan, Apartheid, the anonymous boardroom of fat men arguing about which secretary has the best ass. And if there’s any justice, even though I’ve no doubt you could fire off a response to this post that would be perfectly eloquent and arresting (in fact, you totally should…my hits would go through the roof), your work will be read only as a curiosity, a way to peek into the mind of a caveman. Or else by lovers of great fiction, who will have to read them, set them down, shrug, and say “well, that was super good, even if the guy was a Neanderthal Nazi.”
And really, what the hell does it matter to you if two hot lesbians want to settle down and be respectable (which isn’t the way I like my hot lesbians either, believe me)? Until such a time as they bring down your property values with raging lesbian drug orgies, you’ve got nothing legitimate to complain about, and even then, I’ll trade houses with you.
Nothing to complain about, that is, besides the so called “degradation” of the Biblical standard of marriage. Upon what are you basing that? A passage or two saying that God hates gays? You know, there’s also a lot of passages about stoning your children to death for disobedience, but I don’t see you cleaning your guns on that account.
Clearly you have taken it upon yourself to prioritize certain portions of the Bible. I am forced to ask then, why in the world would you choose to prioritize the relatively tiny portion about hating and oppressing your fellow men and women, instead of giving precedence to the mountain of passages espousing the virtues of love and compassion for all of God’s children? Or at least the hilarious parts about people having sex with gold statues (Ezekiel 16:17 NIV)?
What would Jesus do? If you can answer that question with anything other than “shower the world with endless love and understanding, then flip a wicked ollie on a flaming skateboard,” then you and I have a very different understanding of the man.
So get with fucking program and stop masking your own personal homophobia as a religious issue. It’s not. It’s a nothing issue that shouldn’t even be a question, and yet has been allowed to dominate the political landscape at a time when thousands of deaths around the world are crying out to be addressed.
You’ve spent your life imagining diverse races and cultures, and doing a hell of a good job. Yet your inability to imagine true love manifesting between two members of the same sex almost classifies you as retarded in my mind. It’s not even a moral issue. You’re just an idiot to me.
And not just an idiot. I’ve seen you in person, Orson. You’re fat. And rich. How about working on some of those deadly sins before throwing the first stone?
I know it’s pointless to ask you to change your mind; bigots armed with the intransigence of religion are rarely swayed. But hopefully some of those reading this post will be forewarned that Orson Scott Card has become a poison-spouting lunatic.
And in the interest of providing yet another argument for gay marriage being a non-issue, as well as some modicum of comedy, here’s a list of the gayest things about heterosexual marriage:
When not blogging for Cracked, Michael’s being fired from his position as a Cracked blogger for being “too real” and devoting the rest of his time to Those Aren’t Muskets!
Last 5 posts by Michael Swaim
- If You Wanna Make An Omelette, You Gotta Let Some Kids Get Molested - November 13th, 2008
- CNN Ushers In Era Of Incisive Reportage With New Holograms - November 12th, 2008
- The 7 Deadly Sins of Online Gaming - November 7th, 2008
- If McCain's Concession Speech Was As Bitter As His Campaign - November 6th, 2008
- Class War! A Handy Guide - October 30th, 2008
November 18th, 2008 at 1:28 am
lets fix…
Spoiler 2: ender actually head butted benzo in the shower, pushing his nose into his brain.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Don’t feel like you have to stop reading him. Card is like your favorite uncle that tells great stories, but then spews utter nonsense after he drinks too much. Its aggravating, but his non-conspiracy-theory-homophobic-right-wing propaganda stories are still awesome. Check out responses to his other crazy talk here: http://crazyuncleorson.blogspot.com/
November 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Most non-Christian religions don’t have any tradition of homosexual marriage either so don’t make it out as just a Christian hangup. There is no homosexual marriage in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
People attack the Mormons endlessly for their (long-ended) practice of polygamy, but if you want to get authentic and historical about it, polygamy has more tradition behind it worldwide and across cultures than homosexual marriage does.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Going after the sissy christians/mormons rather than the big ole scary niggers that voted 70/30 to deny their gay allies their Snivel Rites.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Ad hominem isn’t an attack, it’s an informal fallacy. Also, while it’s very surely used in this article, the writer also addresses Card’s argument and responds to it. Card’s article itself is an Ad baculum fallacy so his point is invalid. And yes, I know how pretentious this post reads.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
awsome artical
for gay rights
October 21st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
wow.. that was a really great article
very reasonable and objective… and then totally subjective at the end but idc, loved it, need to show to my homophobe friends -.-
October 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I am hetero and like my pussy straight up…. Nothing I don’ like about the female bod’. Bring on the skank! Right then. Since when did ideas trump nature. If a one is born or so inclined to like one thing over another and this thing has absolutely no bearing on non-involved parties, then it is simply a matter for opinions. What the hell is an opinion? Jesus did NOT have opinions. Opinions, although part of the landscape, are logically feeble. Man , I am a bit drunk so thinking clearly for a change. I read Enders Game — a bit extreme…psychologically seductive…tickles the dark side..etc.. But why pick on gays? The other side, the real side of that story is, they are doing what is natural for them and why the heck should anyone care esp. based on ancient ways of thinking. Card, do you still believe in possession by the devil??? Get with it. And you get to keep your sex life to yourself with nobody passing judgement cause nobody wants to envision you having sex. Too bad so sad. Tataa.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I read Card’s article, then yours. He predicted that those who disagreed would do the ad hominem attack, and distort his position. He was right about that. I wonder what other predictions he is right about.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I am in favor of gay marriage.
Because I hate gay people, and I want them to have to dissolve their relationships through a long, expensive, painful, spiteful, bitter divorce like the rest of us. Why should gay people get the easy way out? Why do they get this special right?
“Kevin, get the hell out of my house. Steve’s moving in with me.”
“The hell I will, Robert! Half the house is mine! I’ll see you in court!”
“Hah! You can’t! Because our union isn’t recognized by the state.”
Support gay marriage, so douchebags like this can get taken to the cleaners just like heterosexual couples.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
i’ve said elsewhere that i’m a conservative Christian, and i just wanted to chime in here… i’m not a Bible thumping Christian, just Christian in that i belive that God once walked the earth to show us they way. conservative, because i think we are being taxed to death and that money is pissed away on stuf i disagree with, or used to line the pockets of those in power. now then, i think they ‘way’ god was showing us was love and forgiveness- but more importantly, not to get caught up in the miniscule BS that divides us. i don’t care if gays marry. i have nothing against gays at all, the really flamboyant ones are kinda funny, but not deserving of hatred and certainly not hell. and, i loves me some girl on girl, but it never really seems to work out that hot in real life, but that’s ok, no one’s making me watch bulldykes get it on. i also know one mormon really well, and he’s the most tolerant, caring guy i know. doesn’t hate blacks or gays or nuthin. i specifically asked him. he said he thought male gay sex was gross, but so do i. so is escargot, but i dont hate mollusks, just ain’t my thing. he just blushed and kicked at the dirt at his feet when i asked about girl-on-girl… but as i mentioned above, that’s more of a myth, anyway. it’s funny how self-proclaimed Bible-literalists have never stoned anyone, they say it’s word-for-word the Truth of GOD, but they’ll have a lobster, because the Bible CANNOT be taken 100% literally. i dont care what crazy fucking nutjob says they take it that way- they ALWAYS have some hedge when it comes to the really whacked out shit. wanna know what i REALLY dont get? it never ONCE mentions smoking pot. WHY THE HELL will neither party take a stand and end this stupid fucking prohibition? stoners dont kill people, they eat doritos and watch family guy. i know that has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but eat shit. wish i had some pot. and some g on g action. not the harley dyke kind, tho.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
This made my life. As a lesbian living in the Caribbean, it is not easy fighting against Bible Beaters who feel the need to quote literally two lines of passage at me, and then ignore the line RIGHT AFTER in Leviticus, that states that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death. Umm…that would be like, 50% of the bloody population. Anyway. Thank you for pointing out that the Bible, written by old men as it were and NOT by the hand of an invisible deity, preached love and understanding, both of which have more place in today’s world than a message of hate.
What annoys me most is that many blacks are anti-gay as well. Do they realize that not that long ago, Seal and Heidi Klum would have been arrested for their marriage? Who wants that? lol
October 5th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
JesusLovesme:
Thanks. I really appreciate you saying so, I am also sorry for my harsh words. Often times when conversing on a blog, it’s easy to get carried away, and we probably say things that we would never say in real life.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
FIRST!
September 20th, 2008 at 1:44 am
@ Allen:
I am a gay woman, from a Christian home, who was told growing up that homosexuality is wrong. It was never pressed exactly, but my Christian parents told me that it is wrong. But I’m still gay, and I’m still Christian.
I think members of the GLBT community like me are interesting in terms of nature vs. nurture. Surely my parents never taught me to be gay, but they also never taught be to hate homosexuality. Sure, my parents were concerned about my lifestyle and did their fair share of yelling and denying before they came around the the idea, but the fact that they still said that I am still beloved in God’s eyes made a huge difference. So, I don’t necessarily think that being gay is something that you learn from your surroundings. I definitely believe that you are born gay, because the last time I checked, I never decided who to fall in love with.
This brings me to… Evey.
My parents raised me by example. They are some of the best people I know, with a concern for humanity and an affinity for good manners. I have been raised Christian, and I would also like to raise my children Christian. I am tolerant of all races, sexes, orientations, religions or other factors that make people “different”. I believe I am a good person, and I try to put as much positivity into this world as I can.
Yet, I sleep with women. I plan to settle down and marry a woman one day (California looks to be solid on their allowance of gay marriage…). I plan to have children one day, as I always dreamed of since being a young girl. I love kids, and I want to have as many as I can. Do you really think that my child would grow up in a dysfunctional home just because my child would have two mommies? Do you think that I would do a bad job parenting just because I don’t have a man by my side?
By saying that a gay couple would not raise a child right, or corrupt their innocence, or whatever ridiculous notion you may have, is basically saying that gay people are incapable of being good examples and are evil people that ought not be inflicted upon children.
(And about the gay adoption issue… many heterosexual couples have children without planning it. It may not be unwelcome, but still unexpected. For a gay couple to have a child, they have to jump through insane amounts of hoops. They have to spend countless dollars and time and energy. You never see a gay couple with a child that they don’t want. We have to WORK to get our babies. We WANT those kids more than anything. It’s not something taken lightly. Why go through all that work to be neglectful, or abusive, or unloving, or a bad environment for that precious child you worked SO HARD for?)
September 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
[...] here you go: “Orson Scott Card Wants YOU (To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace). Including such gems as To those to of you who haven’t read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott card, [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Too many posts to read, but of course, I have to throw my two cents in. First, a link to O S Card’s rant, or an article detailing it, would have been helpful counterpoint, if he is just stating his opinion. Second, I appreciate the article; it’s well written, thought out, and states M Swaim’s opinion well, but let’s all keep in mind it’s just his opinion. The only reason so many other people posted on here is because HE has the use of the website. I’m sure many people have a strong opinion on this subject, but opinions are like assholes- everyone’s got one, and most of them stink. Third, and mainly, I don’t appreciate people turning down (supposedly) great work for someone’s opinion; if O S Card had never mentioned his views, no one would give a shit and everyone would keep enjoying his books. Didn’t Einstein help work on the atomic bomb? Yet almost everyone knows his Theory of Relativity. Why trash some of Card’s work because of his views on something entirely unrelated? Fuck his opinion, it’s his to own and do with as he pleases. But if his books move me, I will read them and enjoy them for what they are, works of art probably unrelated to him specifically. When his zombie mindset starts affecting his books, then we have a problem. BTW, I personally don’t care who people connect with, and I don’t really care for religion, either, but I’ve never had either of those facts stop me from living my life and interacting with homophobes/religious zealots, should I have to.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
This is the best blog post in the history of the internet.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
[...] try and remember the good times when Orson Scott Card was just a swell sci-fi writer instead of a lunatic who wanted to overthrow the American government to stop gay marriage. Sigh. Related PostsMarvel Takes a Stand—The Stand, to be PreciseHis Name Is Still BruceStill [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Evey, if you are seriously reconsidering your position I really think that’s great and I’m very glad that you have proven that not everyone on the other side of this issue is unwilling to see reason. I also apologize for calling you a bigot, since a true bigot would not have bothered to consider the view points of another. I admit that this subject gets me very heated because it pains me to see so many of my close friends being told by a large portion of the country that they are gross, sinners, going to hell, and that their lives and the people they love are horrible perversions. I do think that true bigots and instruments of intolerance are in fact a blight on our society and a disease I hope we can one day eradicate (to borrow some of their own phrases), but I do not class you among them. I am sorry that I hurt you since I do see that you are not hateful and are indeed trying to be understanding.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I’m sure Jesus would think it’s hilarious what you do to people too. Maybe you should consider changing your name if your actions don’t AT ALL resemble what he teaches. I can admit I was wrong. Can you?
September 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I always think its hilarious when people who have preached taking away the rights of a whole group get offended and hurt when they get made fun of and called out for their beliefs.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Jesuslovesme
Wow. The name you go by is jesuslovesme, and you are calling me a hateful, uninformed bigot? You would not say such things if you knew me. and I never claimed to be so gosh darned tolerant. I’m just as one sided, close-minded of a bitch as you are. I guess Jesus loves you because you are so gracious, kind and loving, right. That’s obvious from your posts. I am completely willing to admit when someone has good points, like I did above with ArekExcelsior’s comments. He really got me thinking, and he did so without calling me names. If you actually cared about the people this issue touches you wouldn’t argue in such a way to alienate the very people you have the opportunity to illuminate. This blog has really gotten to me, and it has really gotten me thinking, but people like you make me want to just fight and prove you wrong. ArekExcelsior accomplished a lot in his posts, you however just hinder his progress. I am done with you. I don’t need your toxicity. Thanks for making the world a better place with your presence.
To everyone else:
This blog really has gotten to me. I may be very wrong about some of the opinions I have spouted here. I just want to let everyone know that I am considering your points. Thanks to those that argued logically and un-emotionally, without calling people hurtful names.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Dear Evey, I’m beginning to think your child would be better off without such a hateful, uninformed bigot for a mother, especially since you keep claiming to be so gosh darn tolerant. Oh, wait, do I not have any statistics to back that up? Well, I say for your son’s own good we take him away and only give him back to you when you can prove otherwise. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? Well neither does your argument.
And, as a child of adoption I can tell you that while the process can take a long time and be expensive most couples who go through it receive a child (or children) in just a few years time as long as they are deemed qualified. I think that the social workers who visit the houses of adoptive parents both before and after they adopt are qualified to make those decisions. Also, if my mother is correct, biological parents are often given the option to choose who they would like to give their child to.
ArekExcelsior, great, great post. Would you marry me (I already have a husband, but we can just convert to Mormon).
September 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Touche.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“The black-gay thing is really getting tired. If I was an african american I would be insulted that people were using mine and my ancestors suffering in the same boat as the homosexual’s suffering. Lynching someone and having the law do nothing and even SUPPORT you is NOTHING compared to the “non-issue” as it has been called of same-sex marriage.”
The only people who call it a ‘non-issue’ are those for whom the deprivation of the right doesn’t have any impact. Gays clearly think it’s a major issue.
I’d guess that if you took a poll of most blacks (given their overwhelming Democratic voting, for example), they would not feel this way at all. Yes, I think that race both now and in the past may be arguably more serious of a stigma than before. Then again, as others have pointed out, it’s not like gays haven’t been exterminated or abused both now and in the past. GLBT-oriented people face real stigma at all levels too, including from folks not too ideologically removed from yourself who don’t think they’re fully human and could not fairly adjudicate, say, grading them or hiring them or firing them.
In any respect, the analogy is not to suggest SCALE, but rather character. That is, there is a legal imposition that a community despises and wants to amend. This legal imposition is part of a broader social stigma that puts them into the category of second-class citizens. Those who oppose so do so with no real argument, essentially providing only poor rationalizations for the deprivation of their rights and equal human treatment. The above state of affairs is bad, no matter if it’s mass lynching or just OCCASIONAL lynching, no matter if it’s slave marriages not being protected or gay marriages not being protected.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“But what we as liberals CANNOT do is plug our ears with both hands and shout “LA LA LA MARRIAGE JUST MEANS LOVE” when we haven’t even TRIED to convince anyone that that’s the case - when we’ve just assumed they agree and are simply being assholes. Some are. Many aren’t. Let’s discuss this more constructively.”
Okay, fair enough, I do feel on this score as well on many others that the problem is discussed poorly in our society.
But here’s the deal. People don’t actually believe that. Like numerous gay advocates point out, none of the advocates arguing against gay marriage on traditional grounds (presumably including baby-making) say that we should ban marriage of the impotent, or women past menopause, or even make people sign a waiver saying they intend at some point to produce children. So they clearly don’t care about this. The society HAS moved on, it’s not like half of the nation lives in Victorian England. For example: Southern Baptists have among the highest rates of divorce in the nation. Those people ironically most opposed to gay marriage are those who are sullying marriage most frequently. Which makes this defense, while sometimes seriously floated, a bad argument. And there’s no amount of understanding that turns a hypocritical, contradictory, and poorly founded argument into a good one. It’s just another double standard raised to justify kneejerk homophobia and social change.
Further, the whole problem with the discussion is that it implies that anyone has the right to have it. But they don’t. As long as one group gets to do X and have it be legally sanctified and given protection, every group should be able to do X barring some compelling state reason otherwise. A compelling reason is not semantics, or the intent of the law. Only if some right were being seriously impinged upon would this disparate treatment be justified. Not even Card seriously alleges that this is occuring: His claim that his definition of marriage is not being honored is one that he would not accept in any other context. I can’t argue against the Iraq War, for example, by saying that my definition of peace is being harmed by the conflict.
Further, since adoption and artificial insemination ALSO raise children, gay marriage clearly doesn’t conflict necessarily with the whole child-rearing process, especially when considering lesbian couples. That is, gay marriage can both a) produce new children that wouldn’t have been born without the marriage and b) raise those children.
The core problem with the gay marriage debate is that the burden for it does NOT lie upon gay rights advocates but upon conservatives. The burden does not lie upon those asking to be treated like everyone else but lies upon those who want to make government restrictions upon their right. In that context, there is not a single justification for the disparate, second-class citizen policy that is even worth acknowledging, let alone giving closer attention.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Oppression? Because I think that a healthy heterosexual relationship is better for raising children? That’s ridiculous. I don’t care who gay people have sex with. I don’t care if your born with it, or if you are just sexually messed up. I really don’t care. Do what you want with your life, but once your choices start affecting the rights of another..and innocent child. That is wrong. We have NO IDEA whether or not a gay couple raising a child is a bad or good thing, Sufficient studies don’t really exist yet, but it’s very likely it could be either one. We need to study this more, and study it objectivelly before we just throw caution to the wind and gamble our children, over something so trivial compared to their innocent little lives.
to Alice: do you know how HARD and EXPENSIVE it is to adopt a newborn baby? Do you have any idea how involved the process is? Have you also noticed that once the pendulum swings, special interest groups tend to get more rights then the rest of us? If history is any indicator of what will happen, a gay couple will get a baby before a heterosexual couple just BECUASE they are gay, and the agency will have to meet a quota or something ridiculous like that.
It’s not OK to gamble a child’s future just because you want to have sex with whoever you want.”
Three problems with this position.
First: Since the comparative evidence isn’t out on whether or not HETEROSEXUAL relationships are healthier than HOMOSEXUAL relationships, you guys should have your kids taken away too if you consistently believe this. Notice why this works: You’re not hinging your argument on whether or not a homosexual rearing environment is HEALTHY for the child on some objective scale, but rather whether or not it’s comparatively healthy vis-a-vis heterosexual couples, yet you yourself admit that the data is not there to make that conclusion yet (and, of course, all the data not done by, say, The Council for Families or other explicitly partisan groups shows that there is no meaningful difference).
Second: You don’t get to deprive a right that someone has (and gays have the right, given by “God” or innate to them as people, to marry and to raise children) because you don’t know if it’ll be dangerous for someone else. Drunk driving isn’t illegal because, hey, some studies say it is dangerous, some say it isn’t. Drunk driving is illegal because, despite the violation of liberty in restricting everyone’s right to drink alcohol and drive, the scientific evidence is so overwhelming that it impairs judgment and reaction times and makes people drive dangerously, thereby affecting others, that it must be law. And this is appropriate. But you are asking for people to be second-class citizens until they can prove to the nation that they are ready to discharge their rights. This puts you into the same class as the people who enforced Jim Crow, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests and so forth to try to keep the Negro’s rights limited.
To sum up: It is YOUR burden to make compelling proof that a group has to have their rights taken away, not THEIR burden to prove that it shouldn’t be.
Third: Even if we do find some difference, statistically significant between groups, we’re still not done. Like Steinberg pointed out, if two groups differ sociologically, that is the BEGINNING of sociological inquiry, not the end. So if gays have trouble raising their children, that may not be due to some innate quality of being raised by gay parents but due to the stigma that homosexuals face. Now, the problem is that taking away their rights for this reason would be to legitimize majority tyranny and legitimize that stigma forever: It’d say that because their kids are being mocked on the playground, we should solve the problem not by making a more tolerant and enlightened society but just by making sure they don’t have kids. This is, of course, unacceptable.
And, of course, there’s no way to stop a gay couple from having kids through some means if they want to (artificial insemination, real insemination with a woman friend or even an ex-wife, adoption under the books, etc.), so at the least having the process be out in the open benefits folks like you…
September 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The worst part about this: There are plenty of other crimes that Christians and Mormons recognize as being wrong, fairly explicitly because it’s in the Bible or because of the modern Christian value system, that clearly eclipse gay marriage in terms of rights impositions or what not. Abortion, say. If one consistently believes that a fetus clearly has all the rights of a child, then the state has given means for people to murder. That’d be a good reason to overthrow it, right? Or what about war? Or some people being legally allowed to and in fact given subsidy and economic policy to amass wealth that literally (not with Biblical hyperbole) dwarves nations?
Also, I don’t know if someone’s mentioned it, but for a Mormon to talk about the holy nature of marriage as if their community were on the publically accepted side of the fence on that one is just unwittingly hilarious
. That’d be ANOTHER better (not good, but better) reason for revolution: The fact that the state puts legal barriers in the way of polygamous relationships.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Oppression? Because I think that a healthy heterosexual relationship is better for raising children? That’s ridiculous. I don’t care who gay people have sex with. I don’t care if your born with it, or if you are just sexually messed up. I really don’t care. Do what you want with your life, but once your choices start affecting the rights of another..and innocent child. That is wrong. We have NO IDEA whether or not a gay couple raising a child is a bad or good thing, Sufficient studies don’t really exist yet, but it’s very likely it could be either one. We need to study this more, and study it objectivelly before we just throw caution to the wind and gamble our children, over something so trivial compared to their innocent little lives.
to Alice: do you know how HARD and EXPENSIVE it is to adopt a newborn baby? Do you have any idea how involved the process is? Have you also noticed that once the pendulum swings, special interest groups tend to get more rights then the rest of us? If history is any indicator of what will happen, a gay couple will get a baby before a heterosexual couple just BECUASE they are gay, and the agency will have to meet a quota or something ridiculous like that.
It’s not OK to gamble a child’s future just because you want to have sex with whoever you want.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:41 am
But do gays give a shit WHAT he says?,,,,,,
September 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Please don’t be a sheeple and let someone else form your opinions. Read he article. It’s written in the Mormon Times. Judge for yourself, not because cracked told you how it is.
Dopes.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Evey: A gay couple is taking away a child from another couple? SAID COUPLE CAN ADOPT AS WELL. It’s not like a gay couple walks in and suddenly they refuse to give heterosexuals babies for the rest of the day. You say that some heterosexual couples have trouble conceiving, so they should adopt. That’s great. I’ll just remind you that, funnily enough, ALL gay couples have trouble–wait, no, it’s impossible–conceiving. So they should adopt too, right? No? Why? Cause then there will be less babies for the heterosexuals? Why are they your priority? For that matter, why should gays be the priority? People that would make good parents should be the priority, I don’t care what gender they’re fucking and neither should you.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Oh…my…god. And to think that Ender’s Game was my favourite series. I’ve read so much of Orson Scott Card’s materials in order to practice my writing skills. I can’t lie and say that I’ll hate the Ender’s Game series and his writing style but…he’s lost a great deal of my respect as a person.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
LOVED the article, and have been laughing and swearing alternately at all the great posts.
Have loved OSC’s writing for so long, am so sorry to find out I hate him as a person for his beliefs.
I think I have a crush on Dr. Spork.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The Gold Medal in the Oppression Olympics goes to……EVEY!
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
I haven’t (and don’t plan to) read all 694 comments to this post, so this is directly to Michael. I love you, the world needs more people like you, and I’m so glad you wrote this.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’ve not read through this meticulously - it has progressed rather far since I was last involved - but has anyone bothered to notice that Shakes is defining marriage as an explicitly procreative relationship for the continuation of the species? Do you all find that definition so unusual that it’s not even worth dignifying with a response? Because I assure you, it’s not. I’d be willing to wager that 95% of the people who oppose gay marriage see it this way - and theirs is the perspective represented in both history and the majority of state laws. One of the few certain ways to annul a marriage in this country is to prove that it wasn’t consummated. The majority of people and laws consider marriage to be a contract with society to reproduce. Marriage rights (of the sort we’re arguing gays should have) exist EXPLICITLY to reward reproduction. A deliberately childless marriage, a marriage founded exclusively on love - these are brand new concepts that remain nonsensical to a percentage of the population that would astound those sheltered by tolerance and modernism.
Don’t like that? Great - neither do I. I think the last thing we should do in a world this overpopulated is place incentives on reproduction, and rewarding people for sexually normative behavior is a noxious and outmoded practice. But what we as liberals CANNOT do is plug our ears with both hands and shout “LA LA LA MARRIAGE JUST MEANS LOVE” when we haven’t even TRIED to convince anyone that that’s the case - when we’ve just assumed they agree and are simply being assholes. Some are. Many aren’t. Let’s discuss this more constructively.
By the way, for Shakes’ many avid readers - Leftist McCarthyism is an Anne Coulterism. Evidently, Shakes is a follower of the worst human being outside of an American prison.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
People have been pointing out the things Card actually said and talking about how he’s really not a bigot, just a “(self proclaimed) protector of the institution of marriage”, but everyone should know that’s a falsely PC way of calling yourself anti-GLTB. It’s not sincere and it’s motivated by negative preconceived beliefs about homosexuality. I grew up around those people - i know. Find me one that’s also gay-rights supporter and i’ll eat my words. It’s a modern day mask for church-state narrow thinking.
I fucking loved this piece. I loved every word. I also read Card’s books and it really is heart-shattering for me to hear this.
Keep writing like this. there are three other people around my computer who read this with me and we all think you’re awesome. Everyone thinks you’re awesome. Fuck the haters.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@Evey How do you know that your son wouldn’t be as well off? Not only do you have absolutely NO scientific evidence, you don’t even seem to have any anecdotal evidence to point to. I can tell you from personal experience that the children of gay couples I have met in my lifetime have been, for lack of a better word, quite normal individuals. I have seen no evidence to show me that a heterosexual couple will do any better (or worse) of a job than a homosexual couple. To argue anything else with no evidence (which is precisely what you are doing) is, as I said before, simply coming up with excuses to back up something that you are personally opposed to.
Now, to deal with your second point about being tired of the “gay-black” thing, I’m really tired of the anti-homosexual thing, but until it stops I will continue to point out the faulty logic that the opposition keeps bringing up to support their case (or lack thereof). First, no one is trying to take away from the many years of oppression and struggle faced by blacks in this country and I don’t believe I’ve tried to do that. However, to say that gays have never faced oppression sanctioned by the government shows either ignorance or denial on your part. Don’t believe me without proof? How about this, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; Matthew Shephard (yes, the government did bring his killers to trial, but with a huge outcry from the population who believed that the “fag” got what he deserved or even that killing a “fag” was akin to murdering a deformed sheep); it was not until the mid-70s that the DSM removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders; all over the country young men and women are sent to camps for “reprogramming”; the Holocaust (besides Jews, gypsies, those with mental retardation, and homosexuals were major targets). Additionally, if you actually read the cases that I described, the Loving v. Virginia case dealt with a marriage that the legislature and courts of Virginia deemed “unnatural” and “against God’s will”, using much the same language as those who argue against gay marriage use today.
You can continue to try and kid yourself that you have proof that you are right and that somehow certain types of oppression carry more weight than others, but inside you must know that you are lying to yourself. Personal distaste you are entitled to, I feel distaste towards those who would deny others rights. But I am not going to say, let’s not let anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage get married, so why is it that the other side feels they have the right to say this?
September 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
JesusLovesMe,
Of course I wouldn’t put up my son for adoption, but I KNOW he wouldn’t be as well off, he would have many of the same issues that children of divorce have. I have been divorced once, before I had children. When i married and chose to have children this time, divorce became not-an-option out of choice. If something happened and my husband died I would hope to fall in love and re-marry again, not only for myself but for my son to have a father.
I agree with you that there hasn’t been any real good arguments against same sex marriage. Though some are a bit more convincing than others I still can’t fully concede that I am against it. but like I said above the real issue for me is the adopting of children factor. We really have no long term studies that will tell us this would be bad or good or neutral for children. We only have our own experiences, and mine reveal a big and resound NO.
The black-gay thing is really getting tired. If I was an african american I would be insulted that people were using mine and my ancestors suffering in the same boat as the homosexual’s suffering. Lynching someone and having the law do nothing and even SUPPORT you is NOTHING compared to the “non-issue” as it has been called of same-sex marriage. Of course their are crazy red necks out there that have hurt gays or lesbians just because of their sexual orientation, and that is simply criminal, but it doesn’t even come close to the slave issue and the crimes commited against the african american people. In fact it doesn’t even rival the crimes commited against certain religious groups such as the mormons. Like shakes says above it’s not OK to be anti-gay, but it is OK to be anti-mormon. Mormons were pulled from their homes, their homes and lands burned, their leader tortured and murdered among other things. They were driven out from place to place all under the protection of the “LAW” The expulsion order was given by Mayor Boggs in Nauvoo Illinois. You would NEVER see a judge giving an expulsion order to eliminate the gays. It’s not the same issue. Homosexuals have NOT been treated as badly. Yet, it is still OKAY to completely hate mormons and to oppress them, but don’t you dare say anything against gay marriage or your a bigot—that type of mentality is asanine. The difference is the mormons trudge along no matter what the world or anyone does to them, they turn the other cheek, and say nothing at all. The homosexual interest groups cry and scream when anything even barely resembling oppression goes on. I’m not saying I am for this oppression. I am certainly not, and believe all men our equal, but they should not be compared to the suffering of the african american in the United States.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:25 am
I have to say, with all honesty and absolutely no humor, that this article makes you a hero in my eyes.
As a lesbian myself, it is absolutely unbelievable the amount of ignorance and hatred I encounter almost daily. There is never a day that goes by without hearing someone say, “Dude, that’s so gay!” or seeing someone hide their true sexual identities because of their fear of rejection. Or, rather, lack of acceptance.
If more people looked at this (non) issue with a logical approach and really THOUGHT about it, without any predisposition planted by religion, or upbringing… I don’t think anyone could think of any reason why two women shouldn’t love each other.
My partner and I thank you for writing this.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
Maybe… maybe he was being facetious? For, um… 18 solid years?
I just can’t… that makes me so sad. How such a creative man and otherwise great thinker can let himself be poisoned by base bigotry is truly tragic.
I can’t believe the same man who had Ender feeling such compassion and remorse for his former enemies thinks it’s okay to tell consenting adults who are hurting no one what to do.
I guess this is what happens when you get rich, fat, and isolate yourself. He doesn’t mix with other culture anymore, he doesn’t have to, so his mind is free to entertain delusions. Same thing that happened to George Lucas, except at least his isolation manifests itself in vaguely offensive cartoon characters.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
@Shakes: If our founding fathers were here today they would also say that we shouldn’t recognize marriages involving other races (interracial or not), that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own property, and they’d probably be pretty gosh darn confused about the whole white men who don’t own land voting thing. The founders of this country were not holy seers who did no wrong (just ask some of Jefferson’s black descendants) and moreover they knew that was the case. That is why they created an elastic bill of rights that could be changed from time to time as society progressed. In fact, I think they may even have called the numbered acts something to imply that. What are they called again, revisions, corrections, alterations (no that’s not right). Oh yea, they’re called Amendments so that they can be changed, added to, taken away, etc. Also, my mom and dad couldn’t recreate because of a biological issue and had to adopt, so is their marriage not real? What about people who get married but don’t have kids because they don’t want them? Also I’d like to see what “studies” your getting this information from about children of homosexuals. And, what about kids who are raised in single parent households because one hetero parent leaves or dies? Or is it just the penises touching that makes them unfit?
@Evey What would you do if your husband ever left you for whatever reason? Would you put your son up for adoption because he no longer had a father? I know I don’t think my daughter would be better off without me even if her father was out of the picture. Also, plenty of children wait years to be adopted and never are. Sure there are lots of hetero couples waiting to adopt, but believe me, there are also more than enough unwanted children both here and a abroad. Oh, and to get back to the issue of the courts, they are actually doing exactly what they are supposed to under our current laws. The judiciary branch’s entire job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch. This is to protect minority groups (the founders were looking out for rich white men at the time) from the “tyranny of the majority”. If it wasn’t for the Supreme Court who knows how long segregation of schools would have continued. After all, the large majority of people in the community were so against integration that they turned out to jeer at the new black children joining the school population. Indeed Brown v. Board of Eds “separate is inherently unequal ruling” really rings true still today. Another case to consider would be Loving v. Virginia which dealt with interracial marriage, yet another example where people were appalled by the ruling of activist judges.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I have yet to see a really good, credible argument against gay marriage. I really don’t believe it is possible to construct one because like opponents of desegregation, interracial marriage, and universal suffrage it comes down to simply not liking something or being morally opposed to it. And while you are entitled to that opinion (and there are still extreme people who argue against the things I’ve listed above) it does not mean that you should be able to take away the rights of others based on a personal distaste. Moreover, I hope that in a few years time this argument will be moot in more states than just MA and CA.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
[...] Scott Card is at it againMan, when did Scott Card snap? I used to be a big fan of his work ( until the “I want you baby inside me” incident ). I even forgave him his unfounded anger against Star Trek.But an armed uprising against our government over something like same-sex marriage? That’s just a bit extreme. I guess if he made it into a book, it may at least be a bit humorous. [...]
August 31st, 2008 at 3:05 am
the same thing happened for me with Garrison Keillor
i loved the guy …until i read some of his blog comments concerning gays. here’s some of it. =>http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor
there was more but i lost track of it.
when i questioned (politely and respectfully, i promise) his remarks at the Prairie Home Companion website “chatterbox cafe” the blog moderator complained about my question (”how dare I?!!”) and erased my comment.
same kind of deal…different role-model/celebrity
August 30th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Let’s see, simple points:
Ignorance of reality is a choice as well….
Some of your best friends are gay, hmm, reminds me of an old joke: “But some of my best friends are black” said the klan member to the sheriff…..
You DO have to study the variable of homosexual parents if your going to proclaim them unfit. You can’t say Single parents make worse parents than biological parents and use it as a basis for denying gay adoption. That’s the same as saying most people prefer apples to lemons, so apples are better than oranges. If your going to bring up the variable, than the variable has to be included in the study, that’s basic science.
Family institutions have been on fire a lot longer than same sex marriage has become an issue. Homosexuals are just this decades convenient excuse to deflect attention from reality.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
To add to what shakes says about the adoption issue:
I AM on the fence about the issue of whether gay marriage is unconstitutional or constitutional. I basically believe that people should be allowed to do as they want to do, as long as it is between consenting adults and it doesn’t harm the rights of anyone else. That being said, I under NO circumstances believe that they should be allowed to adopt children. That DOES effect the rights of another, an innocent child. I don’t need the studies to tell me that’s wrong. I am a mother. It took me over 2 years to get pregnant. There are so many couples that CANT have kids and want them desperatly and would give them great homes. Some of these people wait YEARS to be able to adopt. If a gay couple who CHOOSES to live that lifestyle..yes it is a choice, no matter if you were born with it or not, take a baby from another couple who could not conceive because of biology, that is just wrong. If a male homosexual wants to raise a child, you better find a woman to do it for you. (though I don’t necessarily support that either, but I can’t stop you from that, it’s your right.
Some of my best friends are gay, they know where I stand on the children aspect. I shudder to think of my son without a father. I love him more that anything in the world and it is sad when a child doesn’t get the full love of a father and mother. You don’t even have to study the homosexual variable. You can just look at the studies done on children in single parent families and children of divorce, and as much as I believe in your freedoms, I believe in a child’s more.
I’m not saying the federal government should regulate things like single parent and what not, but I agree with Shakes.. do we set what is left of the institution of family on fire? Let’s get accountable people,and start admitting that our choices, our lifestyles effect other people and society as a whole.
If homosexuals want to get married, be my guest. I will come to your wedding and cry catch the bouquet. I will wish you well in your life. But if you show up at an adoption agency and want a baby, all bets are off and I will fight you.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Dave-Id
“Sorry, but your full of shit here.”
I rest my case, my dear friend, and I refuse to have a rational discussion with someone of your caliber for reasons I have already outlined above. I am not going to learn anything from you, and you are CERTAINLY not going to learn anything from me. Not enough time in the day.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:26 am
S’funny shakes, I never actually used the word intolerant to describe anyone. Maybe I went round about in calling someone uneducated on a matter, but so be it. I’m not trying to make converts of anyone.
Seriously though, is there some particular reason why you feel the need to intentionally deceive people in your post? Have you actually read the “minimal studies” on child rearing by homosexuals? Because if you had, it be impressive since there’s been NO long term study performed of homosexual child rearing. Sure, there’s been a couple of some short term studies that have shown children living in a homosexual households suffer. Of course, if you’d read those you’d know the majority agree that children suffer from societal pressures and intolerance, NOT from having same sex parents. Most (if not all) of the studies usually paraded about detailing the benefits of having both biological parents in the home were done to point out the negatives of single parenting. Which, if your interested, has nothing to do with a lack of both genders bringing their “gifts” to child raising. Try lack of money and lack of parental access by the children as being the negative. And, just to round this out, there’s studies that show children raised by two parents of the same gender end up being just as normal and well adjusted as children raised by two biological parents of different genders. So in the end, there’s not really enough research on the matter to support one view point or the other on the issue.
As far as debate class goes, actually I’m quite good at debate (got an A and everything). Yet, what we have here is not a debate. It’s a comment section of a blog on Cracked.com where a bunch of people are coming together to give their opinions on a matter. No one is going to come to this message board for a change of opinion. Quite frankly if your opinion is so easily swayed by something you read in a comment section than I’d be a little worried about you.
However likely or unlikely the possibility is that I make it to the year 2058, I’m sure the United States and it’s citizens will be as good and bad as it is now. People will just find some other non-issue to turn into an issue. After all the US survived abolition, women and black suffrage, interracial marriage, the civil rights acts, etc and the opponents of those movements were far more fatalistic about America’s future than you are. Maybe this isn’t the same thing, but isn’t it funny how all the arguments sound exactly the same? Especially when you state things like “Our fore fathers who framed the constitution…..” You have precisely no ground to even suggest what side of the argument our fore fathers would take if they were alive in our time. Though if you really want to be rational, I suppose some would oppose it and some wouldn’t, just as they did issues in their own time.
BTW: Leftist McCarthyism is one of the funniest damn things I’ve heard all day…. You’re a laugh riot Shakes……
August 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If Evey needs to take a poli sci class, then you need to take a debate class, Dave-id. First of all, in a civilized debate, if you have legitimate arguments you don’t need to resort to name calling or insulting anyone who disagrees with you. Secondly, you’re not even answering the actual points anyone else is raising with a rational argument.
And don’t even get me started on the children! The minimal studies that HAVE been done on the issue of homosexuals raising children shows that it’s NOT good for the kids, they need a parent from each gender because each gender brings their own unique gifts and perspectives to the table and no amount of being politically correct will change that. And I could argue about the state of marriage in our society– it’s not good. Homosexuals aside, heterosexuals are doing a fine job of ruining the institution. That doesn’t mean we need to set what’s left of it on fire.
If you would put aside the insults and the name callilng, I might take some of your arguments seriously, Dave-id, but the fact of the matter is, you are being just as intolerant as you accuse everyone else of being. Just because you think you’re on the “right” side of the issue doesn’t give you the right to dismiss everyone else’s opinon without even examining it. But you probably won’t realize that for another fifty years when the damage is already done (and by damage I don’t mean gay marriage- I mean the Leftist new form of Macarthysim, fall in line, do as we do, accept what we accept, don’t tolerate what we don’t tolerate and keep your mouth shut if you don’t agree.)
August 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Evey, Yes the Justices were “unelected” as you point out. They were appointed as all Justices are (appointed by democratically elected leaders, which you fail to recognize). Sorry, but your full of shit here. On the fence my ass, you don’t want it or else YOU would defend all sides of the debate. It’s interesting how you argue the democratic merits of Prop 22 in California, yet you ignore the undemocratic side of the issue (such as the equal protection clause that was struck out AFTER the people voted). That, in and of itself, makes it a question of constitutionality and wait where do we go to argue what’s constitutional and what’s not? The courts perhaps, oh no, not those evil undemocratic judges again.
And I’m sorry if you think me recommending a Political Science class is an insult to your intelligence, but I’d still have to recommend one. You obviously still lack the understanding of why we have judicial review and it’s place in democracy in America.
What it REALLY comes down to is this: Marriage was originally part of the religious institution, but a long time back in American history it was removed from the hands of Religion and made a legally regulated practice. People refuse to recognize that.
Besides, from your arguments, it sounds like Democracy in America died back with miscegenation laws…. The sad truth is, people like the system when it works for them, they piss and moan when it doesn’t.
Shakes: I won’t even begin to address the idiotic notion that homosexuals can marry heterosexuals, therefore they aren’t being discriminated against. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that statement so be it.
Your definition of marriage is, well one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. So it’s fine for heterosexual people to raise adopted children, but not homosexuals? It’s fine for a heterosexual woman to have a child using a sperm donor, so long as she’s married to a man? If it’s a contract between two people to have and raise children, then what of the LARGE number of children in the country who aren’t being raised by both biological parents right now? Single people raising kids, step parents, shit, we better pass some amendments barring that too. You know, by ignoring, the social, legal and economic reasons for marriage, you make marriage sound really unimportant all together….
August 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Gays have the same rights to be miserable as anybody else…
August 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Gays have the same rights as any one else in america. they can marry any one of the opposite sex that says yes.
Why should I feel bad that one group can’t get “special rights”.
I say Man up Marry a woman, Then cheat on her like all the politicians.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am
You’re all gay.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Dave-id: Homosexuals do have the right to get married under the constitution. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one is denying them THAT right, we’re just refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as a viable way to propogate the species and contribute to civilization. And I guarantee you if our fore fathers who framed that constitution were here to debate the issue they would be firmly against gay marriage. Just because we don’t want to call a homosexual relationship a “marriage” doesn’t mean we’re homophobic or anti-gay. It means we don’t want to change the meaning of a word that has meant what it has meant for the entire history of our civilization. Even if we finally allow gays to get “married” that doesn’t mean what they have is a marriage. A marriage is more than the word, it is a promise between a man and a woman to procreate and continue the speicies, to raise children to, in their turn, have and raise children. Since homosexuals can’t do that, for obvious reasons, they can never have a marriage–no matter what we call their unions.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:22 am
oh and by the way, those justices that violated democratic process… were unelected justices. You might want to look it up.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Dave-id
A people’s government is only as good as ..well..the people. If elected officials are not carrying through with the majority’s vote then we have a major problem. This is the very problem we all have with the Bush Administration. They have blatantly disregarded what the majority of people want and pompously trudge forward saying that we don’t know better, and that they know what’s best for us. That’s exactly what these judges have done. A series of lawsuits were filed against the state after voters in California voted 61-39 percent that marriage should be recognized only between a man and a woman, and then the mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex duos.
As for insulting my intelligence..
“maybe a political science class is in order”
Perhaps you should take a basic debate class. If your going to be in the argument, debate the facts. It is a common place for the feeble minded to digress to personal attacks. I tire of it.
What it comes down to is this: One side of the argument says that it is unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, another says it is unconstitutional that a judge should rule so blatantly against the majority. You will find evidence to support both points of view. Ultimately it comes down to what you believe is right and what is wrong, and you will find the evidence, no matter what it is, to back yourself up. We as a species hate to be wrong.
My point is this: I am honestly on the fence with this issue, and I would love some honest feedback from honest people. I won’t listen to anyone who is a hate-fear monger on either side. It’s the pendulum effect. We watch movies like Philadelphia and we witness the treatment of an oppressed people and instead of correcting the problem, we swing hard left or hard right and miss the mark completely. We alienate anyone who doesn’t agree with us rather than use counter opinions to come closer to the best ethical answer. Instead we insult and discredit them. Just like our good friend Dave-Id has done…and yes I realize I am a complete hypocrite because I am doing the very same to you, however, it is merely make an example to make my point. Ok, that’s only half of it..I do enjoy jabbing you back a bit. Human nature I suppose…
August 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Shakes: Anti-mormon? Can’t speak for everyone, but I’m anti-mormon, anti-christian, anti-catholic, anti-jewish, anti-muslim, anti-b’hai and anti-. It’s one thing to dislike something, it’s another thing to attempt to deprive someone of their rights under the constitution. I make fun of homosexuals (actually I make fun of everyone) and I support same sex marriages. I make fun of Mormons, but will defend anyone’s right to practice their religion. Maybe for most, disliking something is a black and white issue. “I don’t like it, it’s bad so we have to ban it.” Unfortunately, _most_ people don’t know the difference between facts and opinions.
Evey: Umm, you are aware that the Supreme Court of Mass. is selected by the Governor and agreed upon by the Govenor’s Councilors, all off which are DEMOCRATICALLY elected officials. In California, the DEMOCRATICALLY elected state senate first approved same sex marriages (without any judicial involvement).
If you don’t know how the Judicial system works with American democracy, maybe a political science class is in order. ’cause it sounds like you think judges just fall out of the sky, fully robed, onto their bench to hash out decisions based on their own inclinations…..
August 28th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
The sad thing is Card really isn’t a homophobe by any definition of the word. He just disagrees with gay-marriage. And the above sentence is NOT a contradiction. People on both sides of the debate need to learn how to shut-up and listen because this blog’s commentary on Card’s blog (which I have also read) doesn’t address ANY of Card’s arguments. So before you write him off and decide you hate him, go read his blog for yourself. Then you may return to your wallowing, intolerant hypocrisy with a clear conscious.
That being said, though I disagree with THIS blog on every front, it still was pretty funny.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Card is saying that it is the end of democracy, not because it is allowing gay marriage, but the process with which it is being done. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE. It is FACT that the people are not deciding this issue, it is a group of high and mighty judges that have a God complex. The whole issue is bi-passing the democratic process. That is the point Card is making. Whether you support gay marriage or not is irrelevent to that point. We must protect the process or else this country will be run by judges and not the people. We are well on our way as it is….
August 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Anti-gay = bad
Anti-Mormon = good
Just want to make sure I know which group to hate based on their beliefs.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Hmm…. I am still going to read his books, he is one of the best sci-fi writers of our time. Some of our best authors have been proponents for slavery, religious intolerance, homophobia, ethno-centricity, or elitism. You still are forced to read their works in school and college. The reason is one hundred years from now, people won’t care about where the author of a story stood on whatever opinion, all that matters is the piece itself.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Hate to double post, but missed this posters message as I read through the replies a minute ago:
Max wrote: The article itself is very clear, states his position, and that his position is based not on homophobia, but on legal precedence and historical purposes of marriage.
Card believes laws should be kept on the books criminalizing homosexual behaviour. He states that “Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law” as a means for homosexuals to receive legal rights (which makes jack and shit in the sense department). That’s not even a fraction of the asinine rhetoric he’s spouted over the years. You don’t have to wear a sheet and hang people from trees to be a hate monger.
Max wrote: Of course, you can feel free to disagree… but aren’t these kinds of debates, and the non-violent actions taken to support them, what democracy is all about?
Me replying: OK, of course Card stated that CA and MA recognizing same sex marriage “…marks the end of democracy in America.” No offense Max, but since Card has positively no fucking clue what the word Democracy even means, why are you even bringing the word into this discussion.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:24 am
The guy has claimed to be some bizarre sort of democrat (”Tony Blair Democrat,” whatever the fuck that is), is pro gun control and against free market capitalism, yet he supports Bush/Chaney, the war on terror, the usa patriot act and fox news. He distrusts intelligent design AND Darwinism and he believes that the Pill (as in birth control) is the reason for the rise in crime during the 70’s and 80’s. Oh, and apparently he’s still a mormon.
You need the fact that he hates homosexuals to realize that he’s bat shit insane?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
go gays! they deserve all the rights anyone else has! also, it’s not like it was GAY AT ALL when Ender fights Bonzo NAKED IN THE SHOWER!! Card went into some intense detailas the boys were rolling around wet and naked in the shower…not gay at all!!
August 27th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Did you actually read the article he wrote? Or just the blog entry that quoted two sentences?
The article itself is very clear, states his position, and that his position is based not on homophobia, but on legal precedence and historical purposes of marriage. His words that talk about changing the government are not a call to arms, just a statement that he would change things. He never even implied that change would be violent.
Of course, you can feel free to disagree… but aren’t these kinds of debates, and the non-violent actions taken to support them, what democracy is all about?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am
awesome! hilarious! flaming skateboards rule!
August 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I stopped reading the Orson Scott Card books too. They were just too friggin’ weird. Ender had a ridiculous relationship with his siblings. Bean had a weird relationship with his “family”. The brothers from the Homecoming books wanted to kill each other. It was just too much sibling hate going on for me.
I get that he doesn’t like his family, but GAWRSH, does every single book ahve to be about it?
Also, that Ender = Hitler article is WAY too close to call.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
BALLS touching! BALLS, not BOOBS! For fuck’s sake!
August 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Is no one going to address the issue that Ender’s Game seems to have almost completely ripped off Megaman? This whole gay marriage thing seems like a smoke-screen perpetuated by religioius sects plagiarizing Capcom.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Um…. Bravo. Seriously. Way to go, I’m a devout christian and I agree with you totally. Sooo … Congrats. The reason I’m so hesitant is It’s been a while since I’ve seen someone cutl loose and make sense at the same time.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Lol gays.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Many of you seem to be missing the fact that a lot of gays don’t give a shit about any individual church granting them marital status. It’s the legal status that they’re concerned with. And as far as cheapening the concept of religious marriage, take a look at the old-timey Catholic Church’s DIVORCE IS RONG!!1! stance, and try to reconcile that in your head with the fact that they would grant annulments to whoever happened to give them a large enough donation. It’s pretty fucking cheap in my book, let me tell you. I understand that everyone has a price (yes, I could probably to some terrible things for ten million dollars), but they went and stuck a price tag on it preemptively.
At the risk of sounding like a vast paranoiac, I will say that religious marriage is, in part, a way to control you and create the kind of family that THEY want you to have; namely, the kind that pass the religion on to the children and makes it grow. Legal marriage and the rights associated with it have grown as a means of allowing two people (and optionally their children) to have a stable and solid relationship and life together. People need to just calm the fuck down, and realize that this is just another separation of church and state issue. A stack of parchment three thousand years old has no business telling me how to live my life if I don’t decide to listen.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
Awesome rant. I love how you’re able to string together all the ideas presented so well. Fantastic job! I’m not sure if someone has already mentioned this, far too many comments to read through. So just be particularly anal, I believe you missed the word “the”.
,< Right about here.
‘So get with fucking program and stop masking your own personal homophobia as a religious issue. It’s not.’
Very smooth.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 am
How can someone who can write with the intelligence of ender and bean be such a moron in real life?
August 21st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Upon reflection, I’ve been a little gentler on the Massachusetts Bay Colony than I really should have been. The Protestants that founded that colony didn’t believe in specially empowered clergy; that’s a Catholic concept and one of the most hotly contested beliefs during the Protestant Reformation. They believed in a community of the godly, permeated by God’s will in every instance. The mere fact that clergy were uninvolved BY NO MEANS makes marriage secular; the state was strongly theocratic and emphatically mandated to do God’s Will.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Nathanial: I think we’re more at odds than we probably need to be on this particular issue. I agree that religious figures have no authority save what the state grants them; I regret, however, that the state grants them any authority whatsoever. It might seem simply symbolic, and in the legal sense indeed it is; however, that symbolism is crucial. I, for example, disapprove of the phrase “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance; a lot of people would say I was harping needlessly on semantics, but I really think these symbols run deep and bury themselves in the American subconscious.
To conclude, yes, I want to completely remove ties between religious types and marriage; the fact is, however, we must be practical. Both sides of this debate need to concede that we’re dealing with a culturally and historically loaded term whose definition is murky; both sides have their own somewhat mythologized versions of that definition. Social conservatives say that marriage is defined as a procreative union between a man and a woman; social liberals say it is defined as a celebration of lifelong love commitments. Take another look at history: all religion aside, whose view goes back further?
John D. has helpfully pointed us to Coontz’ book on marriage; he presents it, however, as a history of secular marriage. Actually, its central thesis is that marriage for love is a new concept that would have seemed ridiculous and foreign to almost all our ancestors. Again, leaving aside questions of religion, marriage as a social institution has nearly always been explicitly procreative. That has changed somewhat, but the change has been RECENT - and pretending ours is the timeless definition and social conservatives are the interlopers does not make it true.
Bottom line: we’re social progressives. What would make you think the past will have more useful precedents for us than for our opponents?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
# Nathanial Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
demonravniel wrote:
Nathanial also continues to ratify my points without seeming to recognize them. Priests acting as agents of the state is MY point, not yours; I’m saying priests should not BE agents of the state.
a) I’m saying that religious leaders have NO authority (other than what the state gives them) when it comes to marriage.
Yes, that’s well and good, except that SECULARISM, as demon pointed out, is a NEW CONCEPT and the power of the GOVERNMENT has always been historically rooted in a CHURCH of a RELIGION. MARRIAGE, as demon pointed out, has always been tied in with a RELIGION.
Thus the US of A Govt, attempting to garner more votes by pleasing EVERYBODY of EVERY RELIGION, despite the fact that these RELIGIONS are frequently in CONFLICT with one another, has in fact replaced RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE with some bastard half-breed called a CIVIL UNION that pleases nobody and pisses everyone off!
August 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
demonravniel wrote:
Nathanial also continues to ratify my points without seeming to recognize them. Priests acting as agents of the state is MY point, not yours; I’m saying priests should not BE agents of the state.
a) I’m saying that religious leaders have NO authority (other than what the state gives them) when it comes to marriage.
b) You want to completely remove *any* ties between the religious types and marriage? Fine by me.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
John D: Out of curiosity, in the Masachusetts Bay Colony, who was entitled to these supposedly secular marriages? How was this marriage defined? If it was a “civic” ceremony but subject to religious laws, it doesn’t make your point. The Puritans might not provide us with the example of secular humanism that you seem to hope they will.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Demonravniel: A very pertinent point. The trouble is, much of what is considered ‘right’, ‘moral’ or ’societal norms’ is grounded in a major religion like Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, or whatever, depending on wherever you come from. Also, one cannot rely on one’s own intuition on what is ‘right’. The fucking child rapist in prison probably thinks he was doing his victim a favor too…
August 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I see two questions here, Nat. 1) Are Christians correct in claiming that God hates gays? 2) should the US in fact allow/ban gay weddings?
Answer 1) Yes. God hates gays, and says so in Leviticus 18:23 plus some other verses. However, Jesus loves everybody. Period. That includes gays. So, CHristians are wrong in telling someone that because they’re gay, they cannot be Christian.
Man is not perfect; you can be expected to sin, quite frankly. Everyone sins. You may tell a little white lie, or stab somebody; point is you sinned. There is no order of magnitude; a guy who tells a little white lie is just as sinful as the guy who rogers his neighbour’s 3-year-old. However, there is no order of magnitude to Jesus’ love either, and so he extends salvation and his love to gays too. It remains for them to accept it. If you want to know how, I can clarify in another post. It’s easier than the world thinks
Answer 2) I don’t live in the USA, so I don’t know how things are run. However, I do know this. WHen you got a multireligous, multicultural society and a Govt. that refuses to state what position they intend to take (because they’re greedy for votes), some disagreeable situations will occur. Situations in which one religion gets the drop on another and the other religion ain’t happy about it.
Then do I want the US to be a Christian country? Tell the truth, not really. I would like such a place to be founded; I would like to have a place run by Christian rules, but welcoming, accepting and tolerating all people, but such a case will not be possible.
Noob
August 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Nathanial also continues to ratify my points without seeming to recognize them. Priests acting as agents of the state is MY point, not yours; I’m saying priests should not BE agents of the state.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
What exactly did the quote by John Calvin prove? He acknowledged that it hadn’t been considered a sacrament before Pope Gregory, but claimed that “all admit it was instituted by God.” Whether it was considered a formal sacrament or not is irrelevant…that’s a specifically Christian concept without bearing on our discussion, and Christian theology was fairly well-developed before the sacraments were agreed upon.
In fact, the Calvin quote demonstrates exactly what I’m saying. There was simply no point before the modern era that any area of human life was considered unrelated to religion. Whether marriage was explicitly a religious ceremony or not, it was considered to be in the sight of God, and the state was considered to be performing God’s will in all things anyway. Before the birth of secularism - again, in the modern day - to say something was civic did not mean it was not religious. They were one and the same; civics was religious, culture was religious, economics was religious. The idea of religion as a SEPARATE part of society against which others are to balance is new and would have been abhorrent to most of humanity for thousands of years.
The idea that ANY facet of society would not be subordinate to the will of God is very nearly brand new. Religious marriage does not predate state marriage; they were ONE AND THE SAME.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Card is acting as a big, fat mouthpiece for the Mormon church leadership. I guess he figures he owes them. As a former mormon, I know individual mormons may be “lovely people” but the leaders are completely anti-gay and devoutly committed to their anti-gayness. Card is shilling for an organization that authorized experimentation on homosexuals in an attempt to change their sexuality. You’d think it was something out of one of Card’s sci fi novels. But it’s true. Scary people.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
demonravniel wrote: Priests are therefore capable of officiating state-validated weddings just as readily as judges, and it remains as common to have a religious officiant than a secular one. My brother has a purely secular marriage, performed in city hall before a judge; the judge’s signature is on the document. My parents’ marriage license, on the other hand, contains the signatures of two priests. What were they doing anywhere near it?
Because the priests are acting as agents of the state. That’s why they always intone, “By the power invested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you husband and wife” — rather than “By the power invested in me by gawd almighty”. Any authority to declare a couple married is derived from the state. Period.
If you really wanted to argue that marriage was a purely civic institution - “and always had been” - you would need to demonstrate that NO religious official was involved at any stage, and I don’t think that’s been adequately defended.
Not true at all. In order for *your* point to be valid, you’d have to prove that the religious figure was NOT acting as an agent of the state, but as a wholly independent authority. (You will note that a JP or city clerk alone can marry a couple; a priest, rabbi, imam, etc. cannot.)
You’d also need to return to the point I’ve now made thrice - that historically, civic marriage (as a concept wholly divorced from religious marriage) is a very new concept with NO clear, readily accepted point of genesis. The notion that some religions, with their thousands-of-year-old tales of marriage, would be “glomming on” to the dubious legal principle of a two-hundred-and-fifty-year-old nation strikes me as very difficult to believe.
No matter how much I wish it could be argued, there’s simply no proof that state marriage predated religious marriage. The two were never distinct until the modern era, and it was secularists who decided to separate them. It’s a great distinction, and one I believe in with all my heart - but it’s one we have to argue, as opposed to assuming it will argue itself. Getting into “whose credentials go back further” pissing contests with organized religion is FUTILE - and the point for social liberals isn’t who was here first, it was who did it better.
We weren’t here first. We do it better.
Just because you keep repeating a fallacy doesn’t make it true. Perhaps you missed these posts above, so allow me to introduce you to them, just in case:
Vincentius wrote:
August 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
[...] marriage has always been more a civil issue than a religious one. The Catholic church only made (hetero) marriage an official sacrament in the 16th century AFTER the Protestant reformation, which had noticed that the Bible didn’t make it one. Even when the Catholics tried really hard to find a precedent for the sacrament of marriage, they couldn’t find much earlier than the 13th century.
John D wrote:
August 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’m amazed at how little many of the posters (like Card) have no idea of the actual history of marriage.
Marriage is, in its origins, a civil, not a religious act. We have thousands of years of evidence of civil marriages and about a thousand years of religious marriage. Marriage comes out of property and family law. It is older than any religion practiced today.
But the conservatives like to say we shouldn’t look at foreign cases. Let’s just look at the United States.
In the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, it was noted that in the early days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, clergy were forbidden from officiating at wedding. Marriage was wholly civil.
In America today, when a member of the clergy officiates at a wedding, he or she says something on the lines of “by power vested in me by…”
Oh, yeah, it’s the state. While a member of the clergy can refuse to officiate at any ceremony, they don’t get to set the base rules of who is eligible. A divorced person isn’t likely to get a Catholic priest to officiate, but they can still marry.
Notice that the Catholic Church is not currently calling for a ban on divorce or the remarrying of divorced individuals. Anyone who wants to claim that religion forms the basis of marriage is going to have to explain how various religious groups are able to certify marriages that are forbidden by other religious groups. For that matter, atheists are able to marry in the United States. (Compare this to countries were marriage is truly a religious function: the non-religious cannot marry, and interfaith marriage is illegal.)
No, it’s not that the government needs to get out of the marriage business, it’s that the clergy need to realize that their government service jobs don’t give them control of things. They’re just shifting some of the paperwork off the city or county clerk.
So maybe we should remove the ability of clergy to be officers of the government. We can get religion out of the marriage. But if they’re going to stay in the marriage business, they’d better admit that it’s not their game.
If you want to find a country where religious figures *really* have control over who gets married, and who does not, try Saudi Arabia, or even Israel. Such is NOT true in the United States.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Demonravniel,
You have it backwards. You may assume “there’s simply no proof that state marriage predated religious marriage,” but you’re wrong. May I suggest you read Stephanie Koontz’s “Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage”?
Koontz clearly demonstrates that marriage was, for a very long time, only secular. But you don’t have to go to Koontz for that. There’s a lot on the web.
Marriage became a sacrament of the church in the twelfth century. Later, Martin Luther disagreed with the sacramental nature of marriage. The Catholic Church has insisted on marriages being witnessed by a priest only from 1563.
Maybe John Calvin should be allowed to chime in here:
“Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of (Pope) Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God’s ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments.”
Let me revise your statement: There’s simply no proof that religious marriage predated state marriage.
There, now it’s correct.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
SOURCES, PLEASE
OKAY, if you’re going to post something this drastic, you should at least get it straight.
Orson Scott Card, after an ENTIRE ARTICLE, which as conveniently been left out here, said this:
“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.’ ”
(full article at http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586)
He never said it directly. He said it as a hypothetical quote.
He has his right to an opinion as much as anyone else.
Orson Scott Card never said that he hated gay people — he doesn’t want the definition of marriage CHANGED from what it has been forever. It is a sensitive subject, and something that parents should be allowed to talk to their children about; it is so influential to religious and personal beliefs, that it should not be taught in schools, but as AN OPINION, by parents. Heck, if children are not allowed to pray in schools, they should not be taught anything else that can influence religious beliefs.
I encourage everyone here to read Orson Scott Card’s full article, and you’ll realize that he’s not some maniac–you can still enjoy the books of such an inspiring author. He is trying to protect democracy.
His full article is here: http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586
And this is the protect marriage website: http://www.protectmarriage.com/
Some of us are more worried about the fact that certain members of the government are making HUGE social changes without having it approved by the people. It’s about more than just gay marriage.
We’re not all crazy and intolerant people–we just want to have more control over our [future] children’s lives than some government (people we don’t know!). It’s such a sensitive subject that it should be handled delicately by each individual with their offspring.
I could continue, but my point in posting this was that I wanted people to get Orson Scott Card’s story straight. He’s being regarded unfairly.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Nathanial, you’re painting a strongly distorted picture of the current state of marriage in the United States. Of course it’s true that you must have a marriage license issued by the government in order for a marriage to be valid; that license is validated (and often physically signed), however, at your marriage ceremony, whether it takes place in your back yard or in - drumroll, please - a church. Most people get their marriage licenses significantly before the date of the ceremon