(To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace)
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!
This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am and is filed under Bigotry, Ender's Game, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Orson Scott Card. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
(To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace)”
How I Spent My Summer Vacation, By Michael Swaim (Age 24)
The Funniest Comedic Failure in the History of YouTube
Hollywood Gives Up: Keanu Reeves to Play Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde
The 5 Most Likely Ways Humans Will Become Obsolete
Copyright © 2005 - 2009 Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. CRACKED, CRACKED.COM and the "CRACKED" logo are trademarks owned by Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
ScottyV: Like most knee-jerk, do-gooder (read: attention whore), reactards, you have oversimplified an extremely complex issue. Try reading about socialization, neural imprints, envirmonmental conditioning and a little human psychology. Try understanding other human beings, just as you are asking bigots to do, instead of clenching up your mental sphincter and spewing immature hateful invective. Human relations are surprisingly more complex than the Aristotlean yes/no dichotomy you are applying to the problem. People become bigots by doing exactly what you have done, which is to divide the world into areas black and white, rather than varying degrees of grey. I would keep my mouth and eyes closed if I were you and try not to breathe in, because im certain you have your head lodged directly up your ass.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I find this odd as I came here to tell Card he could have saved 40 million years of if he had just killed off the assholes that were inciting to rebel, funny he is so tolerant when he is writing. Nice of him to prove my point, people do not put up with rude behavior and should not.
As for gays, send them to china maybe they can control the birth rate.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Swaim– awesome article. Your point was nicely articulated.
RevJSH– how about eating a giant, overflowing(in fact, erupting) bag of cocks. Bigotry is nothing but a product of poor thinking, ignorance, and stupid-as-fuck choices. To say it’s beyond one’s ability to not fucking choose to be a bigot is quite possibly THE MOST RETARDED THING i have ever read; 1000’s of times more retarded than Mr Scott Card’s rant against homosexuals. You, sir, are an enabler. Again, swallow as many fucking penises as are immediately available, and immediately seek out more upon finishing said penises.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:16 am
contra to the variety of “stick to dick jokes” comments, i thought i’d add my two pennies an’ aw. excellent article man; the best comedy comes from a serious place. keep it up.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
http://www.wealthycupid.org/
October 13th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
holy crap! i thought i was the only person ever to read enders game! (and the other 3 books whatever) and i thought the suits would look stupid but not that stupid
September 10th, 2009 at 5:36 am
xStephan, I would like to know what “qualifications” you think a person needs to be able to express their opinions. Just because this is a comedy website shouldn’t mean that you can’t deliver messages in a comedic way. I found this article both funny and thoughtful.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I enjoyed the comments here and was surprised to find so many well thought out ideas and opinions. However, this one got missed:
Being a bigot is everybodies right. The whole argument against any form of prejudice is that it is unfair to judge people because of personal characteristics that were shaped by their genes or the environments that they have been exposed to. But bigotry itself is a product of environment and is often based on experiences from our youth. You can get religion, sexual preferences and bigotry from the same place…life. Hating bigots is just a bizzare, contradictory form of metabigotry (yeah, i just made that word up). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion now matter how stupid, backwards and hateful it may be so long as they don’t actually cause harm to another human being. It may suck, but prejudice is in the script, and every role must be played by someone. Bigotry will always exist in some form. For everything that becomes culturally acceptable something new will pop up to take it’s place. Someday homosexuals will have equal rights across the board and there will be twelve gay men standing outside Disneyland protesting the right of furrys to dress up in the Goofy costume. And someday those furries will be protesting the right of Alien (like, outerspace, ya know) refugee’s to marry humans. Hate is here to stay, but to be a part of the solution rather than the problem, try not to hate the haters.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Dude, totally great about your beliefs and all that, but here’s the thing: I think its fair to say that most people look to Cracked as a “Purveyor of Dick Jokes” and not for social and political commentary. This article is just like al those celebrities who endorse politicians and issues and think people should listen to them, despite them having no qualifications to speak on the subject: You have (just as aforementioned celebrities have) earned your self a podium to speak to people with, and you use it to promote something at odds with why you have the podium in the first place.
What I’m trying to say is, stick to, you know, comedy.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Boycotting is going a little too far Mr. Swaim, people had, have and will have retarded opinions, even people who may come off as educated or smart. You gotta separate the art from the person I say.
But I agree 100% on the whole “caveman reading”
“Enders’s game was a masterpiece, too bad it was wrtitten by a gay-fucking-fearing asshole.”
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
Thumbs up man.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“Unless something’s gone terribly wrong, no one is pregnant.” That made my day right there. But yes, now men can get pregnant.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Blogroll links aint that great
but i am not the admin
August 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
I think you’ve made the right decision. Sure boycotting someone because you disagree with them is a dick move, but Orson Scott Card hasn’t written anything since he ended the Bean Quartet. Empire was a painful rant and a mediocre novel, Ender in Exile was OK but far too drawn out, the Earth Homecoming thing is dull and I haven’t been able to bring myself to read The Tale of Alvin Maker.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Mr. Swaim, you can’t be entirely serious on boycotting Orson Scott Card’s work based on his prejudice. It’s practically a law that authors need to have some sort of irrational hatred towards another group. Lovecraft was practically a nazi. Bukowski didn’t write much that wasn’t about how worthless women are. Steven King has written quite a few homophobic things. The Marquis de Sade is pretty much the most reprehensible person ever, and many people(we’re talking literary professors here, not extreme domination fetishists) hail his writings as the best stuff to come out of the 18th century. Dr. Seuss supported the japanese internment camps during WWII. And just about everyone who has written a book in the last two hundred years was a terrible alcoholic. If we’re going to denounce books based on the author’s character flaws, there won’t be many books left.
August 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Lauren: “…Also, in interviews Card has stated that he is not anti gay, just anti gay marriage.”
So does that mean I can have.. “I’m not racist, I’m just saying that sometimes my cotton needs to get picked and I don’t really want to pay for it.”; Nope, sorry not seeing it, he’s still a homophobe.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
While I agree that Card is a bigot, I love his writing too much to not read it anymore. I still love old classic disney movies even though Walt Disney was an out spoken anti semite. Same with Wagner. Same with some Mel Gibson movies (there are a lot of anti semites). The point is, even though their personal beliefs and politics may be vastly different from my own, I can still enjoy the work they created. It helps that most of Cards books (and in my opinion his best) are mostly politically neutral. The Enders series and the Shadow series are never glaringly right of left, Alvin Maker is mostly good morals (treat people well, help people etc) and stand alones like pastwatch recognize and try to rectify some of the worst acts in history (ie slavery).
Also, in interviews Card has stated that he is not anti gay, just anti gay marriage. He even has gay friends. It is more akin to post civil rights where people were no longer racist because they had black friends. We are just making those baby steps for the general public to see another minority group as real people. Eventually most of the homophobes will die out, like the racists have been.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am
uh just for the books ender killed bonzo when i head butted him and jammed his nose into his brain…
July 27th, 2009 at 5:50 am
I’m absolutely stunned by the number of morons claiming that Noted Homophobe Orson Card isn’t a homophobe.
He’s a Homophobe because he claims the destruction of MF’ing society is preferable to living in a world where teh gayz can marry.
He’s a Homophobe because he spouts Anita Bryant BS, claiming gay people are only gay because they were molestered.
He’s a Homophobe because he argues that two consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their own home should be subject to arrest if they’re the same sex.
He’s a Homophobe because he claims that Gay people are actively trying to destroy society.
Vocabulary Lesson -
Matrimony is a religious ceremony. I’m sorry Joseph Smith was illiterate and had a very small vocabulary.
Marriage is a civil contract. For as long as America has existed, and in fact, even before in most of the Colonies, a couple has been able to go to a Justice of the Peace and get married with no Church or Clergy involved.
Our Government has never recognized the religous elements of anyones Doctrine when it comes to marriage. All that matters is the Contract filed at the courthouse, even if your Priest or Minister or Rabbi overseas the oath taking.
Arguing for Civil Unions is like arguing we should have had “Race mixing breeding pairs” to “protect marriage” instead of ending anti-miscegination laws.
If your Church starts issuing something it calls “Business Contracts”, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to define the term as you wish out of some bizarre deference to your particular interpretation of your sky-daddys wishes.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I honestly don’t get what the big fuss over gay marriage is. If you think that two men can be in a relationship together for thirty years and be completely faithful to one another, you’re certifiable.
What’s so bad about civil unions? They’ve proven quite popular in France. You can still get married if you’re gay. When you apply for a marriage license, your sexuality is never, ever called into question.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Michael Swaim is my new favorite person. I thought I was the only one who both loves the Ender’s Game/Speaker for the Dead series and thinks Orson Scott Card has lost his damn mind. As for the book boycott, at least the Ender’s Shadow series isn’t as good as the original (I borrowed them from the library–no money for OSC).
July 4th, 2009 at 4:09 am
@JRM
You’re right, the government should not seek to dictate what kinds of ceremonies are performed inside of religious institutions. However, your point that “marriages are the domain of the religious institutions performing them” contradicts the main point of your posting.
No gay rights laws are trying to make it so that a whole big group of gay folk can walk into any old church they like and demand service immediately. That would be retarded. These laws are not trying to force gay marriage on everyone, they are trying to allow gay marriage for those who want it. They give gay people the same rights and privileges in their union as straight people have in theirs.
Nobody, not the government, nor gay rights advocates are demanding the right to marry in an institution that does not condone gay marriage. But if there is another institution that does condone gay marriage, why shouldn’t they be able to get married there? The fact that another religious institution wants to do something you don’t agree with is not a valid argument, sorry.
Bottom line, these laws don’t mandate participation. You wanna keep your church all straight, all the time, go for it, no one’s stopping you. But you can’t stop people in the church across the street from doin whatever they want. Welcome to America.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
think he’s a jerk? try doing business with this prick card.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I have never read these books, but I think the most appropriate revenge would be slash fanfiction. Am I right?
June 20th, 2009 at 3:39 am
As someone who has read every Ender book as well as the spin-off books, I can say I’m actually quite sad to have ever read the books and thought the author was a well rounded and ethical person. I won’t deny Card’s intelligence, but the outright ignorance of this issue certainly crushes my perceived image of the guy.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I hate all fags and queers
June 10th, 2009 at 3:57 am
That Orson Scott guy was right!
As a mormon (the only one true religion out ov the thousands ov religions throughout history), I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and 6 brainwashed underage slave girls.
Two men getting married, that’s just plain hot….I MEAN WRONG, I swear I meant to say wrong…..(I’m not gay).
Next thing you know, blacks will want to get married! Can you imagine such a world, were not only those cursed with black skin by god for not fighting in the war against satan are allowed to marry each other, but two big strong oiled up men who look like Jake Gyllenhaal could also marry each other? That would ruin the sanctity ov all the less than 50% ov marriages that don’t end in divorce as we know it!
Native American Space Jesus would be rolling in his grave on the moon…or whatever the hell we Mormons, which I am totally one ov and not gay at all, believe.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
This is highly disturbing to me. I consider “Ender’s Game” to be one of my favorite books of all time. He used to be my favorite author….
Card…how could you?
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
oh god. now I can’t read any more Card books. WHY?
June 1st, 2009 at 11:44 am
Oh Michael Swaim. Every time you post, I fall in love with you a little more. Expect me in a tree outside your window with binoculars and digging through your trash any day now.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Hey, I just wanted to take time and weigh in, as I’m sure halfs of dozens of readers already have, on the subject of the Mormon view on Gay Marriage. Okay, you’ve probably been flooded up to your (gay or straight) balls with this, but I still feel my view is superior to any others by virtue of it being mine.
As a Mormon, I agree with the idea that Gay Marriage laws should be opposed. Now, what I’m going to do here is something you probably haven’t seen before, and that’s be rational about it. (I have gay friends, and they all know my view on this topic) There is a separation of Church and State in the US, which basically guarantees both the autonomy of the government to function free of the religious ideals of one church over another. But it also makes guarantees the other way–that churches can operate independent of governmental influences.
If we learned anything from David Koresh, it is that this freedom only goes so far. And for good reason. I mean, seriously!
What people fail to realize is the difference between a legal union and Marriage. This misunderstanding goes both ways. People use the word “marriage” to mean “legal union” all the time. The difference is simple. Marriages are religious ceremonies. The law of the land also requires that marriages performed by religious leaders be backed up religiously, and often this requirement is satisfied by the states giving legal power to ministers and such to do so. But at the end of the day, marriages are the domain of the religious institutions performing them.
The need gay couples have to feel their union is legally recognized, in my opinion, is not the same as needing to legalize gay marriage. The connotation of such is that government must step in and require religions to allow gay marriage. This grossly violates the separation of Church and State thing I mentioned earlier.
With all that mess out of the way, I am not opposed to legalizing gay unions. I’m not aware of many Mormons who are, and the ones I do know of are liek any other extremist–their view is the result of poor education and lack of ability to think independent of Rush Limbaugh telling them what to think.
Would I support such a law? No. Why? I believe homosexuality is similar to any other kind of adultery and is a sin. I’m christian, for crying out loud, what did you think I would say? But, I also believe that God commanded to love thy neighbor, and judge not. So that’s how I live. I can’t validate the lifestyle, but it’s not my job to judge those who live it. I don’t disagree with Orson Scot Cards actions, but I think he should have recognized his celebrity status and chosen his words more carefully.
A government that seeks to dictate how a religion worships should be overthrown. But there needs to be a clarification on how Gay Marriage figures into that thought before drawing a period. Otherwise, like a few other vocal Mormons who also cried out with similar voices, you just end up looking vehement about something you don’t understand.
I believe there is a gay love scene in his book The Songmaster. So, your lashing out at Card for one comment seems a little like the way you characterize that same comment to me. And there is quite a bit of precedent in the Old Testament about unnatural lovemaking habits. Take that as you will, but I choose to place same-sex in there with gold-statue-rape. But then again, that’s my opinion, and as I said, it is awesome.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
As a gay man, I have two logical things to say.
One, there will always be people who find fault with some abstract notion in society, be it sexuality, religion, national motivation, or some other ideal pursuit for agreement toward what any one individual may think is the right way to live. I hold resentment for Card, because he is pushing his opinions upon others with such undue attention that, regardless of your religious beliefs, implies that he wants to change your opinions about all things in the future.
Two, Orsen Scott Card is a writer. It is his job to express his beliefs. Mind you, when he creates works of literary genius, he isn’t flat out saying his beliefs, but rather implying them. I suppose that is where the line is drawn. Growing up and figuring out my sexuality was confusing enough, but I believe that strength comes from developing despite adversity. Card may have his opinions, he may express them in his books, and if his books continue to be well written, I will continue to read them.
I understand that he’s gained a large philosophical hold over people, but even the leader of a religion does not have absolute pull. Jesus may have said many big things, but I have only met two Christians in my life who actually know enough about what he was talking about and understand from what angle he’s coming from to demonstrate Christianity with the love and compassion it takes to truly claim to understand Christianity. He’s a smart man, and he has many things to say, one thing that many people might disagree with–one thing that you might disagree with–should not convince you that he should never write again. Think of all the eccentric geniuses over the years who had batshit, crazy ideas. They still produced works of merits, and plenty of them.
The choice is yours, but I have to say that as far as bigotry goes, it’s nothing that the modern gay community hasn’t suffered for decades. We’ll survive and move forward, as we always have. Historically, the trend is startling.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Swaim, once again you have fucking nailed it.
I love the Ender books, the original four at least.
LOVE THEM.
They, by oil lamplight, were the only reason I survived a week-long blackout that got so bad I was thrilled to go to school just because they had running water and I could finally clean myself again.
But this. This just makes me sick.
For my english class, we’re doing a debate paper, and I almost chose to do mine on gay rights when I realized that I would have to represent the other side as well, and this would be a problem as I have absolutely NO ability to be unbiased about the issue. I have zero understanding of people who think they have any right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies. It is the basest, stupidest means that small, low people have to feel good about themselves.
And I am totally stealing that Jesus line.
I personally disagree with your stance on religion itself, but your description of Mr. Jeezybeard is just inspired.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Hey, wasn’t there a gay joke in Enders Game? Something about Bernard wanting to kiss someones butt?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
poor melissa & molly
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
lalalalala
February 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
This makes me really sad. Thanks for the heads up Swain.
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.
Nail on the head, bro.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I could care less about gay marriage. But this article makes me wish I was opposed to it, just so I wouldn’t be in the same camp as Michael Swaim.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
oh nooooooooooooo i read all the enders shadow books and as someone who grew up in foster care with an absurdly high IQ i thaught i WAS BEAN but thats all sioled and tianted by knowing this guy spews the foul efluent of hate evreywhare
ime glad i know never to put cash in this guys pocket now ile never buy any of his works agian……..but but but
it hurts
February 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I hate to admit it, but I bought, read, and loved ‘Speaker for the Dead’ long after reading this article. I couldn’t help it.
That said, my enjoyment of the book was hampered with the ‘writer is a homophobe’ niggling at the back of my mind throughout. I ate my sausage, knowing full well it was made with shit and the tears of gay orphans.
I can’t believe the same man who wanted to declare war on homosexuality could also write about ‘varelse’ vs ‘raman’ as concepts of humanity’s ability to accept other races and people as equals, saying that the distinction is a mark of moral maturity on the part of the ‘creature judging’.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
First!
February 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I don’t care about what the people comenting this might say, I just think that you are an awesome man! Atleast one person see the same that I see and think as how I think.
I suport all what you said Michel Swaim!
January 12th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Miles, if not for the pathological homophobia ingrained into my DNA by the irradiated Nazi molemen who founded the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn…I would marry you, now, no questions asked. As it is, I agree with your every point except about Speaker for the Dead…I enjoy that book…good job man, Miles for president if Obama doesnt begin a moleman oligarchy
January 5th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Michael Swaim is a post-Mormon?!
It seems all the dirtiest minds are post-Mormons (actually I am only thinking of two examples right now, Trey Parker, and my own friends…)
Weird.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:50 am
I just finished listening to the audiobook enders game for the first time last night, and its a fantastic book. I found I wanted to learn more about the author. So I took to the net for more info, and found this informative article.
It is a shame that the author holds this position on gay marrige. But then again when you think about it, its how he was brought up that has shaped his world view. Its his indoctrination yo his chosen religion which has created the potential for him to express this type of view.
Should we blame him for his error, or should we pity him because he has chosen the wrong road?
Does his personal beliefs have any effect on the story’s which he has created. Does knowing the authors homophobic point of view change the interpretation of the novels?
I can not detect any undertones in his work of these sorts of ideas, and would hope that the stories should not come into disrepute from being associated with these views albeit indirectly.
December 20th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I feel about OSC the same way I feel about H.P. Lovecraft (who was an incredible racist); the guy tells great stories, but I’m either going to ignore or condemn his personal views. It still doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy his work, just that I will engross myself in the story and ignore what an asshole the author is/was.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Just to clarify, I actually did mean that I think this is a great article and encompasses my views on the subject well. Namely, religion is fucked up, people use it as a weapon and you should be allowed to put your genitals in/on whoever you please as long as they are cool with it.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Swaim, you’re a good guy. Way to speak up for the fags!*
*for all those morons about to flame me, that was irony.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Way to go Mike!!I never really heard of OSC,let alone read his books!!
I went to the Ornery American Website and guess what??
NeoCons Who LIve In Ivory Towers Shouldn’t Throw Rocks At Liberals Who Live In Glass Houses!!
And Yes,You Heard Me right!!There Are Just as Many Conservative Elitists As There Are Liberal Elitists!!
Sure,Limbaugh;O’Reilly;Savage and The Like LOve To Go Among The’Common Folk’and Spout Off A BUnch Of”I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not gonna Take It anymore!!”Bullshit!!
But Truth Be Known,After Their Speeches To Unemployed Auto Wokers Are Over,They Jump In Their Limos and Fly Their PrivateJets Back To Their Mansions and Mistresses!!
FYI:Micheal Savage and Michael Medved Both Act Like They Should Be Charter Members of”Jews For Hitler!!”.
Yawn!!!Orson Card;You Sir Are No Orson Welles!!
You Sir Are No Orson Bean!!
You Sir Are a Jackoff SciFi Writer!!
SciFi Is The Biggest Jackoff Literary Genre!!
SciFi Readers Are Simply Jackoffs!!
“I beleive Gay Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman!!”- Ahnuld,The Governator
December 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Though I support gay marriage, I do not support it through judicial activism. The legislature is the proper branch of government for this reform. It is silly to say that the California state constitution requires gay marriage to be legal, when the people who actually, you know, wrote the thing intended no such result. Such power, placed in the hands of judges, should frighten anyone who can think past a single election cycle and envision the potential consequences of judicial overreach. If a constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it means whatever the hell a few judges says it means, then those few judges are quite literally absolute dictators.
In addition, the term ‘homophobe’ is repeatedly misused both in the article and comments section. It is possible to oppose two dudes getting married and not feel such intense hatred for them that you gun them down in the streets. Unless the definition of homophobe has been redefined to mean, “one who opposes gay marriage.” In which case it ceases to be a term of abuse and simply describes a political position.
Finally, the entire article fails to discuss OSC’s central argument (which is essentially a philosophical one, ranging from the proper powers of government to maximizing the utility of social arrangements) and instead engages in ad hominem argument. Calling OSC a Nazi and a Neanderthal may make you feel better, Mr. Swaim, but don’t mistake it for anything except - dare I say it? - a hateful rant. A better retort would have been to rebut OSC’s statement that one man-one woman Christian-style marriage has been around forever in its current form. It has not. Social arrangements, taken over the entire span of human history, were and are a little more varied than that. Oh, and Speaker for the Dead sucked.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Word.
November 30th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
As a practicing Mormon, I think the Church’s stance on homosexual marriage is f’ed up. I fail to see how two guys or two women getting married in any way impinges on my religion or my marriage, or my life.
So screw the church leaders, I’m a Mormon for gay marriage.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I thought Ender flip kicked his nose into his skull
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 ceremony, so that they can then inform the state: “see, we got married on this date at this church; Father Bob officiated.” 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?
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. 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.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Homophobic Glen Says: [a large block of stuff I didn't read]
Dear Glen,
PARAGRAPH — (Noun) A paragraph is a portion of text, usually small, used to isolate a thought. It usually contains several sentences. A new paragraph marks a change of focus, a change of time, a change of place or a change of speaker in a passage of dialogue. A new paragraph begins on a new line and is either indented, or has a space above it. The use of paragraphs makes the text easier to read and understand.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
The Internet
August 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Dear Nathanial, thank you for saying exactly what I’m thinking! I’m in total agreement with you.
I also wanted to tell both you and demonravinel that we had a debate just like this at my college (it was a school sanctioned, moderated debate) and two very knowledgeable professors took the two sides you two are arguing. My school was/is, to put it lightly, very very gay friendly and because of that getting into the nitty-gritty details made tons of sense. However, what I realized from listening to this debate and reading the comments here is all of us without an idiotic, bigoted mindset need to put aside the smaller issues for now to work against those who would completely deny a group of people their constitutional rights based on absolute nonsense. In a country where it is still ok for politicians to pander to the fears of the undereducated or/and misinformed by openly expressing their hatred and disdain for a group of American citizens we need to band together to make sure that equal rights are extended to homosexuals.
That being said, if one were to argue the finer points I agree with Nathanial. Creating a new terminology, even if it were to be used across the board for heteros and homos alike, would be tantamount to the government ceding governance over marriages to religious organizations and gifting them completely with the power to decree who is and is not fit to wed. The fact remains that marriages today are only legally binding when a couple receives license to proceed from the state. If religions don’t like sharing the title with homos (which already has happened in several countries plus CA and MA) let them change the name.
Finally to my dear, sweet Bob, I offer a suggestion. Go to your toolbox and get out the sharpest tool you can find (that’ll be the one that least resembles you dear). Take the tool and put it in the fire for a few then ram it into both of your testicles as hard as you can. Wouldn’t want you procreating. What if you get a “defective” child?
August 21st, 2008 at 7:01 am
demonravniel wrote: The government should offer identical civil unions to everyone, including straight couples, no questions asked,
BUT, to reiterate… so-called “civil unions” have no standing under international law, and would not be recognized anywhere outside the Insular States of America. Now, that might be fine for a lot of the belly-button gazers, but I rather suspect it might create a lot of havoc for a large percentage of the population.
… and completely ignore the question of what, if any, religion recognizes the union as a marriage. There is no way to preserve separation of church and state while having the government legitimize ANY religious ceremony of ANY church - no matter how progressive. If your ceremony took place at the church and the government told you “yes, that’s legally binding,” then the government failed you and everyone else who realizes the government’s place.
See, thing is, the government doesn’t do that now. Your church ceremony does not mean you are married, legally. All it is is a ceremony, until you get a marriage license from the state. In short, marriage already IS — and always has been — a purely civic institution. The attempts to glom onto it by various churches are nothing more than revisionism and outright lies. Y’know, just the same as when the right whiners keep insisting that Ronny Raygun was a great president, or that Henry Kissinger wasn’t guilty of massive war crimes — revisionism and outright bullshit.
Bottom line: religious ceremonies don’t have legal weight in this country.
I know.
Declawing religious conservatives means codifying this principle into law, plain and simple.
No need; it’s already been done. Just stop falling for their line of BS, and everything will be fine.
bob wrote: Homosexuality is not a mystery. It’s a defect. It does not serve any procreational purpose,
So all breeders who are past their “production date” should automatically have their breeding licenses nullified, hey?
and does not fit in with the greater good of any species, including our own.
That must explain why same-sex mating rituals have been observed in dozens upon dozens of species in the wild from all over the globe, and why, despite the fulminations of bigoted blowhards, human breeders keep relentlessly producing multitudes of queer babies year in and year out, decade after decade after decade, eh? Wait… if that’s not Natural Selection at work, then maybe it’s Gawd’s Plan, eh?
Idjit.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:30 am
Homosexuality is not a mystery. It’s a defect. It does not serve any procreational purpose, and does not fit in with the greater good of any species, including our own. While I respect our individual rights to choose how we live our lives, and what we stick our wieners in, I am also constitutionally protected as I state my opposition to that viewpoint. God save the Queen. (lol)
August 21st, 2008 at 3:33 am
Actually, Nathanial, I do indeed mean to imply that the majority of Americans are stupider than the majority of citizens in the states you’ve mentioned - or at the very least, less capable of recognizing the place of secular society. If you think failure to recognize the place of secularism in modern society makes an American stupid, then yes, I’d say the majority are stupid. I’d say the last, oh, 20-odd years of political development in this country more or less bears that out.
The answer to your question, The B, is that when a gay couple goes into a progressive church and gets married…they would be privy to a ceremony that the government does not recognize, the same as everyone else. Maybe I didn’t make myself specific enough: no church marriage should be legitimized in the government in any way, no matter what percentage of the population it makes itself available to (including 100%). The government should offer identical civil unions to everyone, including straight couples, no questions asked, and completely ignore the question of what, if any, religion recognizes the union as a marriage. There is no way to preserve separation of church and state while having the government legitimize ANY religious ceremony of ANY church - no matter how progressive. If your ceremony took place at the church and the government told you “yes, that’s legally binding,” then the government failed you and everyone else who realizes the government’s place.
Bottom line: religious ceremonies don’t have legal weight in this country. Declawing religious conservatives means codifying this principle into law, plain and simple.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:19 am
noob wrote: Eh. As a Christian, I’d like to say this is a nice post, and Jesus is a nice guy, and he really doesn’t like gays… but he does add at the back that he’ll still love ‘em to bits.
“doesn’t like gays”? Where does he state this?
August 21st, 2008 at 12:50 am
Eh. As a Christian, I’d like to say this is a nice post, and Jesus is a nice guy, and he really doesn’t like gays… but he does add at the back that he’ll still love ‘em to bits.
So Orson can suck eggs. The big difference between him and Jesus is that Orson is a bitchy hater.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
This is all arguing semantics at this point. It doesn’t matter if you define marriage as a religious institution or a strictly civil one.
If you’re of the opinion that “marriage” should be reserved for churches or other religious institutions and that “civil unions” should be the province of the state, then you haven’t solved any problems - what happens when a gay couple goes to a progressive church and gets married there? While the majority of churches wouldn’t perform a gay marriage, there are many churches and congregations that would. Would you call this a marriage or a civil union? This is why this should be strictly a matter of the government recognizing these unions/marriages, and each individual can call it what they like. If you’re gay and go to a progressive church, you can have a ceremony there and be married, but if you’re not religious, or go to a church that disagrees with your lifestyle (why you would go to this church is beyond me), then get married in a civil ceremony without a minister/priest/rabbi/imam/witch doctor/shaman etc. They should both be recognized as the exact same. If the religious people don’t want to recognize it, then they don’t have to and they can call it whatever they want. As long as on government forms you can write in that you’re married, then that’s all that matters.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
demonravniel wrote: “What you’re failing to understand is that the government authenticating marriage has not made it “more than just a religious thing” in the eyes of the majority of the nation. They see it not as creating a different definition, but authenticating marriage as THEY define it - as they have the right to define it, until we make CLEAR that it a secular version exists. It’s simply too confusing to use the same word for both the secular and religious versions - it permits religious people to say “marriage? That’s OUR thing!” Best to do away with it altogether.”
Are you saying that “the majority of Americans” are more stupid than the majority of citizens in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain — all of whom seem to understand that there is a difference between civil marriage and religious “marriage”…?
Or do you mean to say that “religious people” in the States are predominantly disingenuous bullshitters?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
What you’re failing to understand is that the government authenticating marriage has not made it “more than just a religious thing” in the eyes of the majority of the nation. They see it not as creating a different definition, but authenticating marriage as THEY define it - as they have the right to define it, until we make CLEAR that it a secular version exists.
It’s simply too confusing to use the same word for both the secular and religious versions - it permits religious people to say “marriage? That’s OUR thing!” Best to do away with it altogether.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Atheists get married too. Marriage has become more than just a religious thing, it is subjected to federal authentication. No matter which religion you choose, and which religious ceremonies you decide to have for your wedding, (surprise, not just christians get married) you still need to get the same damn marriage license as everyone else. PLUS, you get tax breaks.
In a nation full of different religions, using the civic free religion (civilization IV anyone?) you can’t define marriage by one specific group’s standard without pissing off a whole bunch of people.
You can keep your biblical definition of marriage, but the federal government is going to have to learn to tolerate everyone’s definitions of marriage.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I’ll still buy his books, I’ve collected to many to let this prompt me into leaving gaps on my bookshelf.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Nothing would make me happier than that being true, but marriage not being religious in nature and marriage predating any current religion are not the same…at all. Look at the religious ceremonies of 6000-year-old cultures (if that’s even possible) and you’ll find people getting married with the blessing of gods, spirits and medicine men.
Talking about a “non-religious institution” in the premodern world is a contradiction in terms. Every facet of nearly every premodern civilization was inextricably linked with religion - whether a ceremony was explicitly the province of religion or not, nobody until today would ever have argued that the divinities were not involved.
Plain and simple, marriage is a holdover from a world without secularism. As much as I’d like it to be the reverse, secularism does not predate religion in any useful sense, and “religion” as a separate aspect of a multifaceted life is a brand-new concept.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Sorry, demonravniel, but marriage is NOT a religious institution — it *predates* any current established religion. If ANYONE should get out of “the marriage business”, it’s the gawd-botherers.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Arguments like Card’s and Lampshade’s depend on the notion that marriage is some kind of natural law, and not a value judgment on the validity of someone’s emotions. For some century and a half of this country’s existence, voting was defined as a relationship between a white man and his white male candidate; in time, however, that was overturned because tradition and bigotry were its only supporters, and tradition is simply not enough by itself. Saying that something has always been a certain way is not a basis upon which to create legislation; you need an actual EXPLANATION, a reason why your way makes sense.
The fact is, government should not be sanctioning ANY form of marriage for ANYONE under any circumstances. Marriage is a ceremony that carries with it too many social and religious connotations, and should be exclusively the province of churches and other such institutions. Government should provide civil unions, including ALL privileges currently granted to a marriage, to ANY two consenting adults willing to sign their names to a license. The happy couple may then, if they wish, schlep on down to a church, mosque, temple or alien spacecraft to have their relationship blessed by whatever tradition they maintain - the government, however, should provide NO recognition to such a ceremony.
Handling it any other way is simply not separating church and state - it’s providing state legitimization to a religious ceremony that maintains discrimination against alternative sexualities. No matter what you think of the sexualities themselves, the government does not have the right to do this.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Wow, lampshade, I’m glad you base your moral decisions on how “mature” you think a group is behaving. I guess I have been mistaken all these years treating homosexuals as individuals with different levels of maturity, different personalities, etc. Now that you’ve helped me see the light I’ll be sure to follow your faultless logic in all of my encounters with others.
In addition I’d like to point out that this inability to keep their personal lives “behind closed doors” that so infuriates you stems from the government and ridiculous little people like you who can’t seem to remove yourselves from their bedroom. Also last I checked the mainstream was saturated with images of heterosexual relationships including physical relationships, so how are we keeping it “behind closed doors”?
“A majority of African Americans will tell you the gay pride/gay rights movement is not enough close to the civil rights movement.” Well if the non-statistically verified majority says so… Also, I would remind you that a lot of people (including judges, political leaders, etc) didn’t think that equality for blacks was a civil rights issue either, should we have listened to them?
“Another thing that is pathetic is the opposition to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If you cannot serve in uniform without shouting out that you are gay to everybody, then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.” Wow, just a total lack of basic knowledge there, lampshade. Gays are not allowed to serve our country, however the awesome powers that be decided that it would be totally cool with them if gays agreed to serve and die to preserve our freedoms (some of which they are legally barred from partaking in) as long as they made no mention of the icky icky man on man loving. These soldiers are required to keep their dirty homo mouths shut and make no mention of their personal lives outside the army. Straight soldiers have no such restraints placed upon them. Both groups are just as likely to die in battle.
Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to you, lampshade. Change the bulb you’ve got under there it’s a little dim. (In other words, you’re an idiot.)
August 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry…” — Coretta Scott King
August 20th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Calling a person a big would carry more weight if the definition of “bigot” these days was something other than “doesn’t follow pop-culture trends.”
August 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Ever notice how vociferously the anti-gay bigots protest over being characterized as bigots? They say the truth hurts. And when they claim that civil rights for gays is not the same as civil rights for African-Americans — and then you quote someone with impeccable civil rights credentials, such as Corretta Scott King, saying that not only IS it comparable, but that she supports ENDA, the repeal of DADT *and* the recognition of marriage equality… THEN the bigots start whining that “most black people…”
I guess bigots will say anything in an effort to justify and maintain their illogical, unprincipled, immoral position.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Orson Scott Card contra el matrimonio homosexual [ENG]…
Michael Swaim arremete con algo de humor contra el artículo del conocido escritor de ciencia-ficción Orson Scott Card, en el que se opone al matrimonio gay. El artículo original, escrito en apoyo de una proposición contra el matrimonio gay en el es…
August 20th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Yep thats right im a fam member to this dooosh bag….and he fucked up the new iron man comics he wrote they were so fucking bad i was ashamed for him
August 20th, 2008 at 3:07 am
I have nothing against gay people, I just want them to keep their business behind close doors like straight society does for the most part. The gay pride nonsense is exactly the opposite.
This is not much to ask.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:05 am
A majority of African Americans will tell you the gay pride/gay rights movement is not enough close to the civil rights movement. Linking the two just does not work.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:04 am
It is pathetic the way the gay community wants all of society to embrace and support them. They call people who don’t approve of the “gay pride” BS “homophobes.” They want us to think that you have to support them in order to be a good person.
What they are asking for is not equal rights! No, they want the definition of marriage to be changed in their favor. By God I hope that constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (as it has always been in this country) is passed, if not just to annoy the gay pride crowd. If they acted a bit more mature I would gladly support civil unions.
Another thing that is pathetic is the opposition to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If you cannot serve in uniform without shouting out that you are gay to everybody, then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities. It is as simple as that. They won’t ask, you don’t tell, no complications.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Forgot to add this one:
USATODAY.com - Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage
The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm
August 20th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Some of you need to read this…
On ENDA:
Quote: “I support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994 because I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.
So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950s and ’60’s.
The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. I believe that this legislation will provide protection to a large group of working people, who have suffered persecution and discrimination for many years. To this endeavor, I pledge my wholehearted support.”
On homophobia, racism and anti-semitism:
Quote: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
On allies and partners:
Quote: “For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”
On our common struggle:
Quote: “We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.”
All the above come from Corretta Scott King, and are available at the following link:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King
And y’know what? I’ll listen to Ms. King before I’ll listen to Allan Keyes (or his supporters), thank you very much.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Excellent argument. Ender’s Game was a great book but as you pointed out and from what I remember of it this kind of attitude is the antithesis of the story itself and as you mentioned, the values of most major religions. People focus so much on the parts they prioritize and not enough on the overwhelming message of “treat each other with respect and dignity and as if we are all God’s creations.”
August 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
So. I got here a little late.
Got some agreements and some disagreements.
Agreement: OSC has gone off the rails on this one. Just like he went off the rails when he said that unless one has been married and had children, one cannot be considered an adult. Which is pretty stupid, when you think about it…it’s as if he believes that the unmarried non-parent has never had any responsibility. I’m here to tell you that isn’t the truth.
OSC should be taken to task for going off the rails this way…although it won’t do any good. He’s a stubborn cuss who, the more he is told he is wrong, the more he digs in his heels and insists he is right. This isn’t uncommon among Mormons (whom I can say that about because I used to be one).
Disagreements: I can’t see not reading someone’s fiction (or their non-fiction) for that matter, just because you don’t like their political or social opinions. Hell, if I refused to read anything by anyone who I don’t agree with, my literary experience would be considerably poorer. Now, this doesn’t mean you have to buy his books, thereby further enriching him…use the library. But there are those of his books that do have literary value, and I’d hate to think that people miss them just because OSC is a homophobe.
And, for those of you who are talking about burning his books…Sorry, but burning books, or even advocating it, is just as evil as homophobia.
And, dude, whether OSC is fat or not does not have anything to do with whether his opinions are correct or incorrect. For me, at least, it cheapens your argument when you go off on that little tangent of, “…and…and…and…and he’s fat!” Last I looked, being fat might be unhealthy (and some of the latest studies are kind of divided even on that), but it isn’t a sin. Gluttony is, but I know plenty of gluttons who aren’t fat, and I know some fat folks who are definitely not gluttons by any stretch of the imagination.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Also, seriously, Gamodon? You don’t see a substantial difference between a religious doctor inseminating a lesbian woman and a church performing a marriage? Let me help you out: one is a professional performing a medical procedure, one is a religious institution practicing its faith. One of these things is not like the other; one is constitutionally permitted to discriminate and the other is not. I don’t know how much help you need figuring out which is which, but I’m here for you.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Which I didn’t leave: freeradical9.blogspot.com
August 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
At risk of sounding like a Card defender, I’ve hammered out a quick rebuttal to both the Hitler essay and some of the Ender’s game stuff more generally. Check it out at my website.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:04 am
sorry, i know i sound dumb but you fail to have a basic understanding of the bible. The Old Testament law is only relevant in its time. The New testament is what applies today. Also its incredibly rascist/misguided to compare blacks wanting civil rights compared to gays wanting marriage benefits.
I don’t want to talk about this on cracked of all places, i just come for a good laugh, try to stick to your forte and keep away from serious politics.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
MICHAEL SWAIM MARRY ME
August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I had read Orson Scott Card’s statement about how allowing gay marriage would cause the downfall of democracy just a couple days before reading your article, and I have to say i agree with you 100%. I LOVED OSC. I’ve read almost everything he has written and had them at the top of my favorites list. I knew he was a devout Mormon but I figured he would at least be reasonable and intelligent about it. Now that I’ve found out otherwise, I can’t express how disappointed I am and how I can’t muster up any enthusiasm for reading anything he’s going to write in the future, or re-reading any of my (former) favorite books. It makes me want to cry. Religion is seriously the worst fucking idea, ever, and I loathe and despise it.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
[...] Scott Card is at it again [...]
August 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
For those who lambasted me on my “slippery slope” argument, here’s a California court decision ruling that a religious doctor CANNOT refuse to artifically inseminate a lesbian woman:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S142892.PDF
So, only a matter of time until religious churches can’t refuse to marry.
Don’t try to argue it, just say “I’m willing to have people compelled to do things they don’t want to do so that I can be on the popular side of current trends and feel good about myself and how open minded I am.”
August 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Man, you are behind the times. I swore to never buy another Orson Scott Card book back when he posted basically the same opinions in 2004. I have to say though, all the rants about biblical precedent are kind of misguided, since Card’s position has alot more to do with some bizarre homophobic biological imperative logic than the bible. If you ever read Pastwatch (sadly, one of my favourite books) there’s a part where the central couple to the story meet up after years of heroic separation, and then decide they’d rather not have sex, since it would be dishonest without the intention to raise babies. That’s right people, not even a kiss, a fondle. Nada.
Card never says the gays are going to hell, just that the human race must go on and overpopulate the planet with our heterosexual offspring, and that it is immoral and destructive to think otherwise. Dumbass.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Mr. Swaim, as one of the multitude out there who has shared with you a the heart-rending emotions in ‘Speaker for The Dead,’ as well as his many other, I am shocked and appalled to find out this aspect of him. Maybe it’s just my wanting to keep a hold on the images created in my mind of the authors whose stories I read, but I rarely try to find out anything about their personal life, and this is exactly why. Now, every time I pick up one of his AMAZING books, there will be a little taint to it, just like watching Will Smith after finding out he’s a Scientologist (fuck Tom Cruise).
It is too bad he’s such an asshat, and I want to join the rest of those out there who’ve said it; Thank you so much for being able to touch on such a touchy subject, rant and rave beautifully about it, put down on of the greatest fiction writers of all time, and do it with such class and good humor as to make anyone who reads it a better person for it. And who knows, maybe Mr. Card will get it through his thick skull that times are changing, and he needs to stop focusing on petty, insignificant bullshit.
Amen, brotha-man.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
[...] Swaim of Cracked responds to Orson Scott Card’s rallying cry against gays, in Cracked’s typically colorful [...]
August 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Here is an excerpt from the judge’s decision from the Loving v. Virginia case from 1967:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
Reading this decision today I think most people would agree that this judge was bigoted and his main premise (that interracial marriage was somehow offensive to God) is ignorant and deplorable. Looking back a mere 41 years exposes us to some really horrible and offensive opinions that very few people today would try and defend. It makes me wonder how someone 40 years from now will feel about some of the opinions expressed in these comments. Let’s just say the future will not be any kinder to ignorant, homophobic views then the present is to racist ones.
To all those who say it is hypocritical to ask for tolerance and then attack other people’s opinions, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, sure. It just so happens that my opinion is that people who condemn gay marriage fall into three categories: 1) Ignorant and completely lacking real world experience outside of their own hate filled little bubble 2)People so heavily in denial about their own sexuality they can’t stand to see those who are brave enough and/or who are surrounded by a supportive environment enjoy a happiness they will never share 3) Those who make a profit or receive some other benefit from encouraging fear and hatred in the other two groups. The first two groups deserve pity, they are being exploited by the last group and they are too wrapped up in their little ball of hate and fear to see it. The last group deserves nothing but contempt and they will be the people who our descendants will point to as an example of our collective ignorance.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Don’t want to disrupt the vitriol, or anything, but at 600 comments, Swaim gets DOUBLE ANAL!
August 18th, 2008 at 5:12 am
marckw wrote: “I always know when someone is speaking emotionally rather then logically. When they call those they attack Nazis it’s a dead giveaway.”
Yeah, as opposed to those people appealing to “faith” and basing their “arguments” on a 1,500-year-old collection of goat-herd myths. All that crap is REAL logical, all right…
August 18th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Blink wrote: “And I have a question for everyone pro gay marriage. How would you feel being raised by two Dads or two Moms?”
As long as they were progressive-minded, I would feel a LOT better than I ever did being raised by two small-minded straight bigots — one religiously influenced, and the other just a vicious drunk.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:56 am
I always know when someone is speaking emotionally rather then logically. When they call those they attack Nazis it’s a dead giveaway.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Nowhere does he mention “taking arms against gays”. You’re putting words in his mouth. Don’t attack the man and his literature because he’s following his religion.
Did any of you actually read the quote?
“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.”
And I have a question for everyone pro gay marriage. How would you feel being raised by two Dads or two Moms?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I must admit that I fell out of favor with Card’s work long before I learned of his political views. I would argue that Card’s books pose a danger to society and would discourage anyone from reading them. All of his books have some brilliant child that is either symbolically or actually raped (or worse). While it might seem like pathos, his books are little more than voyeuristic child abuse.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
To Jesse:
If you had read the previous posts, then you would have realized that your points have been covered (and thoroughly discredited). This isn’t about creating another race class on the basis of sexuality, it’s about extending rights to all people equally. I really don’t understand why anti-gay marriage people continually bring up bestiality and incest. It seriously isn’t that hard to see the glaring difference in them - one involves two consenting adults, and the other two involves a non-consenting animal (not right) or a situation where the by-product would suffer harm (the offspring of an incestuous coupling). This BIG difference is why gay marriage should be allowed, and bestiality should not, without being hypocritical.
By this reasoning, we should not allow boxing as a sport, because what’s the difference between two people stepping into the ring to punch each other and some guy on the street walking up to a stranger and beating him to a pulp? Doesn’t one automatically lead to the other? For that matter, why should we allow any marriages at all? If a man and a woman are allowed to get married, then that’s just a slippery slope towards bestiality and incest, isn’t it?
As for polygamy, who cares if it’s allowed? It’s a decision between consenting adults that doesn’t harm anyone else, feel free as far as I care.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
After almost 600 comments, there’s probably nothing more to be said than, rah! A righteous rant, correct in every sense.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Sexuality != Race
Which means that sexuality is not a basis for CIVIL rights. Comparing someones sexuality to their race or their sex is one of the most ignorant things someone on the gay rights side can do. If sexuality is a basis for rights, and you constitutionalize sexuality as a protected class, you will not be able to then discriminate against polygamy (in all forms), group marriage, bestiality, incest, you name it. You’ve now precluded the ability of society to be discriminating in what it approves of and doesn’t. You’ve granted sexuality a protected class status. I personally don’t want to live in a world where anything goes like that.
I don’t think the government should mess with marriage period, they shouldn’t be able to deny OR grant someone the right to marry. That’s not a governmental power.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
@ cugel –
By that “logic”, so was Hitler…
August 17th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Card should be doing something right if he provokes such bitter hatred!
August 17th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’ve read a lot of comments denouncing “judges overturning the law”– are you also upset about Brown V Board of Education?
And I noticed it was only the homophobes complaining about the article being “unfunny”. Hard to laugh when someone’s making fun of YOUR shit, innit?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:39 am
CORRECTION –
My comment above should have been directed at annoyed, not at StarVixen339.
Sorry, StarVixen339!
August 17th, 2008 at 4:33 am
@ StarVixen339 –
You’re right. We should be more tolerant toward their intolerance, and shut up and concentrate on just being the best little citizens we can be. I mean, that worked so well for black folks prior to the 1960s, or for the Jews of Germany prior to 1939… Change will come about just because the haters will spontaneously realize that they’ve been wrong all this time — and then suddenly everything will be lollipops and rainbows, right?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I think this business is a bit ridiculous. When I read through that part in the book I didn’t once think of Ender kicking homosexuality in the balls. I thought of it as a plot point, part of the story, and nothing more. Although it may be symbolic, I still think its ridiculous to go off on a rant of an author for including in his book a discretely placed point of view which in all honesty I have no reason to believe is true. I am in no way siding with either party on this point, and I do believe in the God’s philosophy that everyone must be given equal amounts of love. However I just do not see the validity to the harassment of an author’s work and personal character when there is not even any proof in the article to make me believe that Card’s symbolism is true. To be honest, preaching on the spread of love for all God’s children doesn’t really come full circle when the sole purpose of the article being written is to rebuke and insult someone for something they have done.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
So what if Card’s a moron in real life? Most people in entertainment, authors included, are egomaniacs or jerks in person. If he ever finishes the Alvin Maker series, I’ll still read it. So will you, and you know it.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I don’t get it. I thought he was a decent open-minded guy before this. I mean he has had a gay character in his books before (see: Songmaster).
August 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
You know, I read this article and was truly shocked because I love his writing so much, and I fully disagree with Card’s beliefs on gay mairrage.
However, upon reading these comments I’m disgusted by a lot of what those who I agree with have said.
Simply because I’ve seen a few comments that explain how they didn’t like the article and they expressed their feelings about gay mairrage not being holy and so on and so forth. That isn’t what bothers me. What gets to me is the fact that all those people have been bashed by others, simply because they don’t agree. I don’t agree with them, but everybody is entitled to their own opinion and be disrespectful because they believe different things from me.
This gets to my main point. The issue described in this article is about Card not being able to accept the way other people wish to live. Yet, when people who disagree with this article come to leave a comment about how they disagree, those who are saying they now dispise Card are doing exactly what he did! Bashing people who have different beliefs.
As I said, I don’t agree with Card one bit…but the fact that other people are being such fucking hypocrites on these comments sickens me.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I love the Ender series, and these priceless works deserve a sanctified place in the canon of childrens’ liturature. Now understandably this doesn’t excuse the bigotry and ignorance of Card’s statements, but his beliefs should not discount the message and brilliance of his books. As human beings we all share certain levels of prejudice, Card just has the misfortune of being a more public figure. As long as his views don’t seep into his literature I am perfectly comfortable reading his works and recommending them to others.
Now I’ll make one thing clear– I am pro gay marriage, having a mother who plans on tying the knot with her live-in gf next month. However, while prejudice and bigotry is one evil we must face, ignorance and illiteracy is another evil against which we must do battle. And I know there are thousands of children out there who just need a push from inspiring novels such as the Ender series in order to realize the wonder of the written word.
Of course this being said, I will be sending a strongly-worded letter out to Card’s camp
August 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
If Orson Scott Card was truly complaining about the judges overturning voted law, then he truly is a dumbass. Jesus Christ, I hate listening to people bitch and moan about how the evil judges overturned a law voted in by the people in California (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Newsflash morons: voters are idiots. Voters will let their religious beliefs, personal hatred of a particular group, or preference in hair color dictate who and what they vote for. It’s the same reason voting was never meant to be for EVERYONE. Hell, even the forefathers said it: The only people who can vote are the one’s who are literate, own land, and know what the fucking hell they’re talking about. (Okay, so maybe that last one wasn’t said in quite that way)
I’m extremely thankful judges have the power to overturn laws that are just plain horrible. Whether it be because they’re racist, sexist, or go against the rights of a group of American people. That’s what judges are for - they’re there to make sure no one tries to pull a fast one in a court of law and use our justice system to unfairly persecute our peers. (I realize that a lot of times judges fail in this - just look at all the stupid lawsuits people file daily and win - but atleast that overturn was one case where they did their fucking jobs)
August 16th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
[...]
Orson Scott Card Wants YOU To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace [...]
August 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Great article, Swaim.
As a lesbian, it bothers me when people try to make a big damn deal about how gays should not be married. I, personally, have no desire to get married, EVER, but I wish that I could have the choice instead of merely accepting that it’s a coincidence that I don’t want to get married and I can’t anyway.
Many people cite the sanctity of marriage garbage as a reason for homosexuals to not be allwoed to marry. Personally, I think that straights have done a good fucking job of ruining the sanctity of marriage. Divore, affairs, and all the other jazz that could happen with any couple, has ruined it. Give the queers a shot to be just as miserable as everyone else if they want to.
Honestly, though, I think there are far more important things to worry about politically, and most of my gay friends (which is pretty much all of my friends) would agree.
PS to Patrick-No, gays aren’t hanging from trees. Instead, it’s fences. Google “Matthew Shepard” if you need any ideas.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
We seem to be missing a basic point here and I’m sorry if it was already brought up, there are a lot of posts! The government is totally responsible for making sure its citizens are protected from a majority that would deny anyone not falling within its particular ideal a fair share of the rights and benefits each law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen deserves. It was the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Ed that finally made segregation illegal in the US despite a rather large majority of the people (including government officials) vocally fighting against integration, right? Our government was set up to protect the oppressed minority (be they blacks, women, gays, etc) against the tyranny of the (idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic, horrible) majority. Almost every major civil rights victory in our country has been met with the uninformed, unwashed masses expressing their anger at the government.
Some more things that are gay about heterosexual weddings:
Lots of same sex hugging
Groom has to pick and than rank top guys in his life
Outfits coordinate with table dressing
Committing to one person forever–soooo gay!
August 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am
jeezuz, first off all, well done swaim, your a legend.
second-if god created man in his image, and homosexuality is a basic human instinct/urge, does that make god bisexual? does god like a little rumpy bumpy with other men? hmmmm
and third-you cannot hate someone for WHO they are (homosexuals are not so by choice you fucking gonads), you can however hate someone for WHAT they are, such as fucking moronically retarded and a complete dingleberry of society, both of which, coincidentally, are what all you homophobic scumbuckets are!!!
it’s scientific bitches!!!
August 16th, 2008 at 3:47 am
I could think of a fucking list of reasons to overthrow the government,and nowhere on it would be the legalization of gay marriage. I don’t really think it’s going to have a big impact on society.
I’m a christian in the sense I believe in God and Jesus and they both rule, I’m not one of those religous fanatics that think everyone on the planet who doesn’t believe in their exact God down to the letter should die. In other words:
“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.”
I agree with Swaim.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Ooooo…. that’ll cut me to the quick, that will! *rolley-eyes*
August 15th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
“It’s not that I’ve got anything against sophomoric stupidity and juvenile threats over the internet… but why do some people have to be so blatant, and flaunt it in everyone’s faces the way they do? Why can’t they be satisfied with being morons stuck in their mom’s basement and just shut UP about it?”
Judging by that, you’re either having someone else’s argument, or you’re completely rat-shit insane. Regardless, I don’t feel like humoring you; I’m going to go out and buy Ender’s Game and read it right now.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
To John D:
Ah, I didn’t actually know that. Obviously I can’t exactly speak on behalf of the US on account of the fact that I’m Australian. Fair enough.
But in Australia, I’m pretty sure the idea of marriage has always been a concept, like you said, instigated by the British as a religious union, like in India.
Thanks for clearing that up anyways.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
OSC published a similar screed a few years ago, before it was legal anywhere in the U.S., saying basically the same thing: that gay marriage would be the downfall of civilization (and I believe those were his actual words.) I had the same reaction — I *love* his writing, Pastwatch most of all. He writes such incredibly sympathetic characters, it was just mind-bending to realize that he could not grasp a gay couple as being just… a couple. I similarly swore off buying his work.
But after a couple of years and a lot of thought, I’ve realized that unfortunately I think his work is important. Xenocide and Pastwatch both cover ideas that are very forward-thinking and more relevant all the time.
His politics are deplorable, I detest his attitude, and think his mind is bent in the worst way, but I do continue to recommend some (not all) of his fiction. It is an unsettling contradiction, that someone who could write those essays can also write beautiful fiction about the complexity of human motives and cultural tolerance.
Also, to the commenter who said that gay rights should not be compared to ‘civil rights’ because gay people are not the subject to the violence that black people were, a loud “fuck you,” courtesy of Wikipedia:
“In the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were founded on perceived sexual orientation. 61% of these attacks were against gay men, 14% against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals, while attacks against GLBT people at large made up 20%.[3] Violence based on perceived gender identity was not recorded in the report.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_gays,_lesbians,_bisexuals,_and_the_transgendered
August 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
There are way to many people calling out to stop reading his books. His novels are beautifully written, they have interesting plots and real characters. Don’t deny yourselves their beauty. Just get it from the library and don’t give the close minded your hard earned dough.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Robert Denby wrote: “I’m sure the majority of gay folks are perfectly average people who don’t let one aspect of their lives completely identify who and what they are. Unfortunately, the loudmouths like you cause the rest of us to unfairly characterize them as a bunch of whiny pissypants who are constantly complaining about how tough you have it; it seems like you won’t be happy until someone actually lynches you, at which point you can finally say “I told you so.” I already said I don’t care what you do; I’m militant only in my apathy, so what do you want?”
It’s not that I’ve got anything against sophomoric stupidity and juvenile threats over the internet… but why do some people have to be so blatant, and flaunt it in everyone’s faces the way they do? Why can’t they be satisfied with being morons stuck in their mom’s basement and just shut UP about it?
August 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“How’zabout self-centred blowhard heterosexists like you provide us with a good example first, huh?”
Of what, someone who’ll shut the fuck up? We certainly can’t go to you for that.
I’m sure the majority of gay folks are perfectly average people who don’t let one aspect of their lives completely identify who and what they are. Unfortunately, the loudmouths like you cause the rest of us to unfairly characterize them as a bunch of whiny pissypants who are constantly complaining about how tough you have it; it seems like you won’t be happy until someone actually lynches you, at which point you can finally say “I told you so.” I already said I don’t care what you do; I’m militant only in my apathy, so what do you want?
August 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I LOVE Ender’s game (and all the other stories).
August 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
davoyeahdude notes that “in the United States I’m sure, and I’m positive in Australia, where I live, the concept of marriage has always been deemed a sacred, spiritual, ‘religious’ union.”
I can’t speak about Australia. I just don’t know, but I have my suspicions.
I live in the United States and I can correct our Aussie’s friend’s misunderstanding. Sorry, davoyeahdude, you’re wrong.
As I noted in my earlier comment, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, ministers were prohibited from officiating at marriages. Marriage was wholly a civil act. Let me say this again:
In the hotbed of Puritanism in the New World, clergy were forbidden from officiating at marriages. Why? Well, the Puritans didn’t think marriage was “a sacred, spiritual, ‘religious’ union.”
For that matter, we should all be aware that the United States has a long tradition of civil marriage, that is weddings where the officiant is a government official. When Bob Atheist marries Mary Freethinker, their marriage is not “a sacred, spiritual, ‘religious’ union.” It is, however a legal union with all the rights of Will and Charity Pious who were married in a church ceremony.
But then there’s that Aussie thing. Maybe things are different in Australia. I do remember a scene in the movie “Gandhi,” set in a different former British possession, South Africa.
Under British law at the time, only marriages performed by the Anglican Church were valid. Gandhi speaks at a meeting where he is trying to build a coalition of Hindu and Moslem Indians in South Africa, pointing out that under the law, “we are all bastards and our mothers and wives are whores.”
There was a situation in which marriage was a (all together now) “a sacred, spiritual, ‘religious’ union.” Specifically, one in which the religion of the ruling class was accorded special rights.
We do not have a state church in the United States (a few wackos claim that each state could have an official church, just not the Federal government, but they’re simply wrong and probably evil). As far as the US government (and any state) is concerned, marriages are equally valid if performed by any religious group or none at all.
Just how is that “a sacred, spiritual, ‘religious’ union”?
There is no justification in the United States for one set of rights for Protestants, another for Catholics, yet another for Jews, and so on through Moslems, Buddhists, and anyone else I’ve forgotten.
Likewise, there is no justification in the United States for one set of rights for people with opposite-sex partners and people with same-sex partners.
Special unions for same-sex couples would be just that. As the Chief Justice responded when the Massachusetts Legislature asked if civil unions would be enough, “separate is rarely, if ever, equal.” There is no compelling state interest to do otherwise.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am
To Getalife:
Did I actually say that all children who are subjected to abuse all come from hetero relationships? You’re saying I did, which pretty much proves your inability to have an intelligent discussion, as you entirely missed the point of what I was saying. I mean, hat amount of ineptitude should be illegal.
Of course there is abuse on both sides, and all I was saying was that It’s probably better for kids to grow up in a Homosexual home without abuse, than a hetero one that’s full of it. It’s better the other way too. You know, for kids to grow up in a loving, heterosexual-couple-household than an abusive homosexual one.
So, in reality, you’re just a dumbass who struggles to understand commonplace literary devices such as hyperbole (exaggeration). And the fact that you had the word parents in inverted commas after the word “gay” makes me pray that people like you never exercise the right to vote. That’s a disgusting way of belittling an entire demographic of human beings.
Yeah? Was that clear enough? I don’t know, you’re the know-it-all who claims to have all the insight.
Oh, the liberal media’s agenda that they’re force-feeding to the general public? As opposed to the bigoted, homophobic agenda the religious right are pushing down people’s throats? Come on man.
Pookachan: Well, that’s a pretty good question. I say that there should be some choice in the matter. The whole idea that I’m trying to communicate is that a civil union is pretty much exactly the same as the “marriage” tag, except without the “religious” undertone. That’s basically it. I’m not for or against anything here, I’m just offering suggestions/input. I mean, I’m not going to picket and protest against gay marriage if it passes here in Australia, I just think that, like you mentioned, there could be some separation between the two. I mean, maybe some heterosexual couples would prefer to be in a civil union. It’s quite possible that a homosexual couple who identified themselves as Christians would want a “marriage”. It depends on the doctrine of their church or whatever, but realistically if the idea of a “marriage” is perceived as something that is only meant for a man and a woman, then there probably wouldn’t be that possibility. I mean now, not in the future.
Nathanial: Yeah, you’re correct, but I never said that marriage was always a religious institution. I said it’s “considered” one now. I never brought up any apt history or whatnot, I purely stated that marriage is largely seen (considered to be) a religious institution (particularly in Western culture). I wasn’t saying that it has always been this way. Perhaps not, and you’re right in saying it wasn’t, but the matter of how much “religious” history and “mythology” it predates and the thousands of years of tradition etc. is completely irrelevant when we’re talking about 2008, particularly in Western Realms. In the United States I’m sure, and I’m positive in Australia, where I live, the concept of marriage has always been deemed a sacred, spiritual, “religious” union. It’s these communities that I’m addressing when it comes to the issue of Gay marriage.
And this is why I said Civil Union and not gay marriage. Read carefully, then think, take a cold shower and think again, to make sure that you have fully processed what I am saying, pleeeeeeease?
“A Civil Union would protect the gay community from the stigma of a binding religious institution that denied gays and lesbians their rights. A lawful Civil Union that offers the same rights as a marriage, but without the “Religious Institution” tag would probably be a lot better for the homosexual community…”
August 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
[...] week due to a sudden misguided monitor phobia, and didn’t get around to reading the comments on my incendiary Card post until [...]
August 14th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Huh. As a Mormon (only technically; they can’t excommunicate me if they can’t find me), I am ashamed of Mr. Card. Not only do I find that his writing lacks serious merit (I read a few of his books when I was in high school, and found that they were rather trite), but his opinions are personally, morally abhorrent.
If you haven’t read the article that so clearly outlines his homophobia yet, it can be found here. Both his logic and facts are flawed.
Some parts jumped out at me (and forgive me if this has already been addressed; I haven’t read all 550+ comments…):
1) Gay marriage has hardly been unthinkable in all of human history. Remember, we’ret talking about the same human history where women dressed up as boys in order to function as prostitutes for monks (”Japanese Costume: History and Tradition”, Alan Kennedy, pp. 25), marriages were arranged for political/monetary gain, men only had sex with their wives because they were expected to (a la Sparta), where actually feeling sexually attracted to a woman was considered icky (a la Athens), etc. etc. etc. ad naseum. If human institutions have not only accepted homosexual relationships but have encouraged them at times, then I hardly think that gay marriage was never even considered.
2) No, it is not usually legal to abort an already viable child under most circumstances. Generally, abortions after the first trimester require that there be serious reasons (if carrying a child to term would be likely to cause significant harm to the mother, for example). [As an example, my now-wife had an abortion over a decade ago. She was pregnant with twins, was into her fourth month, and was rapidly losing weight; she was already under 100# before she was able to get an abortion. Her doctor said it was unlikely that she would be able to carry one, much less two fetuses (feti?) to term, and that it would likely prove fatal to her if she tried.)
3) Duh, of course it’s illegal to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that perform abortions. First, if you are on their property, you are trespassing. (You think that this is a right? How ’bout if I walk in on you during your dinner and proceed to deliver a four hour long monologue on why France is cooler than the US?) If you aren’t on their property, then you are obstructing public traffic and restricting their ability to conduct a legal business. (Again, if you think that this isn’t legal, then how cool are you with the idea of me and a few hundred of my friends surrounding your house and preventing you or anyone else from entering and leaving?) Even if you aren’t physically preventing people from entering leaving, you are intentionally intimidating people.
4) Marriage may be a religious term (which you are correct in saying can not be redefined by the government), but it is also a legal term, which is the domain of the government. I could get married in a religious ceremony, and be considered married in the eyes of the church, and yet not have a marriage license or certificate, and not be married in the eyes of the state. Since legal marriage is already regulated by the government, the government, acting as proxy for the people, can in fact change the requirements. (ps: the courts are charged with upholding the state constitution. If a law violates it, even if it’s a popular law, then it is the duty of the judge to strike the law down. If you don’t like it, press for a constitutional ammendment. It’s already been done in a few places, ya know.)
5)”The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.” …And allowing gays to marry would also solve these problems. I’m sorry; was this paragraphy supposed to be against gay marriage, because this one makes it sound like a good idea.
6) “…there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.” …And there is no law that can make a woman a man, a black person caucasian, or a jew christian. And yet they are required to be treated equally under the law. If you are in favor of discriminatory practices under the law, don’t forget that the sword cuts both ways; Gov. Boggs ordered Mormons expelled or executed because religions weren’t treated as equal under the law. (And, in all fairness, because the Mormons at the time weren’t exactly big on actually following the laws.)
7) “There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically.” …And this has what, exactly, to do with the price of tea in Bangladesh? There is also no natural method by which a post-menopausal female can have children, period. Does your argument against gay marriage also include arguments against older heterosexual couples marrying? (Or, Dog forbid!, having sex? ‘Cuz that’s just gross.)
9) Ah, so a gay relationship is easy compared to a heterosexual marriage? Riiiiiiight… I’ll bet it’s a cinch to maintain a strong relationship when nearly half of society is trying to tell them they’re goin’ to hell for having sinful thoughts in the first place.
10) You appear to be arguing that gay parents will raise gay children that don’t understand important gender roles, like how women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, and how men should be working 80 hour weeks in jobs that they hate only to come home, kick the dog and get drunk on a four martini dinner. Not buyin’ it. Gender identity isn’t really learned, although expectations are. If you have loving parents, either straight or homosexual, who work their differences out productively, you will tend to seek out and work for relationships like that. Similarly, gender roles are (legally) a thing of the past. Men can be househusbands, and women can work high-pressure managerial jobs.
11) When a heterosexual couple can’t have kids…? Wha? So, by loving each other and being committed to remaining in a relationship with just that one person, a heterosexual relationship is fundamentally different than an equally committed homosexual couple? How, exactly? Is a female teacher fundamentally different than a male teacher in a public school, or are they fulfilling the same societal role?
12) Again, how is a heterosexual couples’ adoption fundamentally different than a homosexual couples’ adoption? Oh, wait, that’s ‘cuz gay sex is gross and god hates that, right? (Remember though, god never said that male on female sodomy was bad, just male-male! So guys, it’s perfectly cool to take one in the poop-chute from your girlfriend and her strap-on!)
13) Yup, marriages fail. Quite a shame. Seems like if you really care about marriage succeeding as an institution, you would want to get more people who were committed to the idea of one-and-only-one partner to get married. Instead, you seem to want to exclude a huge segment of the consenting population. It’s a hypocritical statement; if you want straight people to get married/stay married, you need to expose them to successful marriages. If you then decide that gay people don’t count, that means that your unmarried straight people are going to be seeing a whooooooooole lotta gay people that aren’t married, but are still together. This kinda renders marriage obsolete. After all, if I see peers of mine that are in LTRs without the benefit of marriage, gay or straight, what kind of peer pressure am I going to have to get married. (Answer: none.) If, OTOH, you start working on making marriage something that you do when you are in committed LTR, straight or gay, then you are putting more peer pressure on me to get married.
14) FWIW, property isn’t really yours. The gov’t can take it at any time that it chooses, all for the pittance of paying you fair market value. It’s called eminent domain, and it’s part of the constitution. If a convinced the president that everything you “owned” would be better in the public domain, everything you own could be seized quite legally, with you getting the assessed value. (Technically, every time you tried to buy something with the proceeds, the gov’t could re-seize the newly purchased property, giving you back the money you paid for it. Not that it would pass musted in the court system, but I’m jus’ sayin’…)
15) Wait a second here… Did I miss something? I must have misread you, because I thought that what you just tried to imply was that husbands and wives were the property of their respective spouses, and that children where the property of their parents. What century is it again? Legally, spouses are free agents, not property; they can stay as long or as little as they choose, and parents certainly don’t own their children.
16) Marriage of heterosexuals does have the support of the whole country. Look, if it wasn’t an institution that homosexual people aspired to, do you think that they would want gay marriage legalized in the first place?
Okay, I think that I’ve put enough time into debunking your imbecilic notions. Allow me to make two comments that are completely my own.
A) Gay marriage doesn’t mean that your precious god has to recognize the validity of it. If you think that it’s a sin, don’t do it. Religious and private institutions are generally protected in this manner by the constitution. The Catholics don’t have to recognize a state-issued divorce, the Boy Scouts don’t have to allow atheists or homosexuals (or women, for that matter), and the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party don’t have to allow blacks or Jews in.
B) According to your religion, Lucifer was kicked out of heaven for pride. His plan of salvation was to remove all choice from god’s kids so that everyone would be saved. When god told him that this wasn’t going to fly, he objected, and convinced 1/3 of god’s kids that he was right, god was wrong, and so god gave ‘em all the boot. The plan that god chose was one where his kids would have the agency to choose for themselves, and their salvation would depend on their choices. (Yes, I know there’s a little bit there about a messiah taking their burden of sin on hisself so they could return to heaven, but they still had to make the choice to accept the offered salvation, repent, and change.)
The point is, according to your professed beliefs, god wanted us to be able to make our own choices for good or evil. Your Christ himself said that we (mortals) were not given to judge willy-nilly the rightness/wrongness of others’ actions; god is the only judge for our souls.
And yet here you are, trying to make choices for everyone by legally restricting what consenting adults can do among themselves. You make no plausible arguments that banning gay marriage would be detrimental to society as a whole; indeed, your arguments about how marriage is failing as an institution would seem to bolster the argument in favor of gay marriage.
I say, shut the fuck up. Feel free to tell me that I should seek god, that I should follow him, but don’t try to use laws and regulations to force me to follow your version of truth. Allow me and all others the same freedom that your god does: the freedom to choose for good or evil, provided that I do not directly harm you or anyone else.
Fuckwad.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Bondiface wrote: “and its Nathaniel ftw…”
Not on MY birth certificate it ain’t. (Do you spell your name Boniface ?)
August 14th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I love (by which I mean, am greatly amused by) anyone who bases their beliefs on a 3000 year old text written by old men out in the desert. Who were probably completely crazy, because who else but a nutcase would claim with total confidence that they spoke to GOD? Yeah, I know I’m making a gross generalization. But aren’t they, too?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
and its Nathaniel ftw…
August 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Robert Denby wrote: “I am a Christian, for what it’s worth, but I absolutely don’t care what gay people do. They can get married, give ambassadorships to their pets, have their grandparents mailed to Pluto, whatever they want. So long as they FINALLY SHUT THE FUCK UP, we’ll just call it a draw.”
How’zabout self-centred blowhard heterosexists like you provide us with a good example first, huh?
John D wrote: “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. [...] 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. [...] 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.”
ABSOLUTELY correct, sir!
Jason wrote: “We can debate the origins of marriage, and whether or not it was religious, civil, or political at its inception”
No, there’s no need at all to debate it. John D. is wholly correct. It is is civil matter, not a religious one. Period.
Jason wrote: “but the fact is that in the 5,000 years or so of recorded human history, it has only been in the past 20 or 30 years that the idea that the union of a same-sex couple could be considered a marriage has been floated.”
Not true at all. There are many cases of male-male weddings being performed in antiquity, even after the advent of the christian church. You’d best educate yourself before you go spouting off such fallacies.
Jason wrote: “In fact, it wasn’t until the 1970s that homosexual tendencies were considered anything other than a psychological disorder.”
Again, false. Gay relationships were non-criminal and even accepted in Napoleon’s day in France, as they were in early 20th century Germany (and at many other times and places throughout history. Again, you’d best educate yourself.
Jason wrote: “but odds are that perhaps our current generation is simply too permissive.”
Compared to what, the Spanish Inquisitions?
Jason wrote: “Malcolm X once addressed the dangers of that philosophy when he said “A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything,” and now we’re seeing that in action.”
Were you aware that in his early years Malcolm X turned gay tricks for cash?
Jason wrote: “Special interests controlling national politics? Sure.”
You’re talking about the military-industrial complex here, I take it?
Jason wrote: “Partial-birth abortions? No problem.”
Please give us a medical definition of “partial birth abortion” without resorting to right-wing bafflegab and talking points and outright lies. Until this phrase was cooked up by the anti-choice crowd of crazies, no one had ever heard it. Then, one you have medically defined it, give us an example — one — where such a thing as a “partial birth abortion” has ever taken place. Just once.
Jason wrote: “So-called civilized society has proven time and again that whistle-blowers are not only NOT rewarded for their services, but are in fact punished for having the temerity to point out annoying truths that we’d much rather sweep under the national rug.”
You’re talking about the attempts to punish the folks who have been whistle-blowing about the crimes of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, the lies that were used to dupe the public into thinking Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the World Trade Centre attacks, ad nauseum…?
Jason wrote: “And if you think Jesus was executed on a cross for preaching “endless love and understanding”, you clearly missed the parts where he said things like, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34), and advised the Samarian woman at the well that she was sinning against God by having sexual relations with a man who was not her husband (John 4:4-42).”
… and just what did he have to say about gays, hmmmm?
Jason wrote: “But I don’t think you (or indeed, most of the people who agree with you) missed any of those historical or social precedents that are at odds with our modern permissiveness on this and other controversial issues. I think you simply found it easier to omit all references to evidence that does not fit in with and support your own worldview, which is ironically one of the very charges you level against Card. In fact, he seems much less homophobic than you seem willfully ignorant and deceptive, and yours is the far greater shortcoming.”
Hey buddy, don’t worry about that speck in Swaim’s eye… you got a friggin’ beam stickin’ outt yer own…
August 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
There are so many things wrong with this diatribe of Michael Swaim’s that it’s difficult to decide which is the best place to start.
How about with the fact that this is Cracked.com, a website which specializes in irreverent and usually hilarious commentary on real-life events but usually (and for good reason) steers clear of espousing doctrine?
Then there’s the deliberate hypocrisy of typing a sentence like “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,” immediately after attempting to do that very thing by reducing legitimate criticism to the level of “stuff about boobies touching and wieners in butts.”
Card may be operating outside the realm of acceptable political dissent at this point, but not all of his points are without merit. We can debate the origins of marriage, and whether or not it was religious, civil, or political at its inception, but the fact is that in the 5,000 years or so of recorded human history, it has only been in the past 20 or 30 years that the idea that the union of a same-sex couple could be considered a marriage has been floated. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1970s that homosexual tendencies were considered anything other than a psychological disorder. You can argue that everyone in human history was a jerk up until the disco era (I’ll let you all sort through the ridiculousness of that sentiment on its various levels all by yourselves), but odds are that perhaps our current generation is simply too permissive.
After all, it’s much easier to sit down and shut up than it is to stand up and voice disapproval. “Anything goes” has been accepted as the motto of an enlightened society. Malcolm X once addressed the dangers of that philosophy when he said “A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything,” and now we’re seeing that in action. Special interests controlling national politics? Sure. Partial-birth abortions? No problem. So-called civilized society has proven time and again that whistle-blowers are not only NOT rewarded for their services, but are in fact punished for having the temerity to point out annoying truths that we’d much rather sweep under the national rug. And if you think Jesus was executed on a cross for preaching “endless love and understanding”, you clearly missed the parts where he said things like, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34), and advised the Samarian woman at the well that she was sinning against God by having sexual relations with a man who was not her husband (John 4:4-42).
But I don’t think you (or indeed, most of the people who agree with you) missed any of those historical or social precedents that are at odds with our modern permissiveness on this and other controversial issues. I think you simply found it easier to omit all references to evidence that does not fit in with and support your own worldview, which is ironically one of the very charges you level against Card. In fact, he seems much less homophobic than you seem willfully ignorant and deceptive, and yours is the far greater shortcoming.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Michael, you sir, should be ashamed of yourself. Did you even read the article that is the subject of this over-inflated rant? I bet none of your sheep did either. I would be just as offended as you are if Card actually said the things you say he did. Sure, he’s against gay marriage, but that wasn’t even point of his article!
Also, did you even read Ender’s Game? Having read it and re-read it just recently, it very evident to me that you extract as much non-fact as possible from whatever you read. You sir, are awarded one Pilkington Point for imbecility and a complete lack of comprehension.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
P.S. Don’t know about the rest of Card’s work, but the Ender/Bean series are amazing.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Everyone should go read the article. Card does not talk about revolt. He says that he personally will work to destroy the current government, but he does so not in a violent context or in one relating to espionage, but in a context of protest and activism.
While I don’t necessarily agree with all of Card’s points, he makes many good ones, particularly within the contexts of religion; however, if you aren’t religious, the article wasn’t really directed at you anyway.
Mr. Swaim, on the other hand, in addition to being ignorant of the Bible, trivial, simplistic and willing to take Mr. Card’s statements waaaaay out of context, has committed perhaps the most egregious sin here at cracked: he wasn’t very funny.
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.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This article= win.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“You definitely CANNOT push someone’s nose into their brain”
Yes you CAN, use a fucking hammer or other large blunt instrument. It is really very easy.
I have not studied martial arts, but I have studied hammers.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
For an alleged comedian, Swaim does an awful lot of petulant whining. Doesn’t he know that humor and political correctness can’t mix? The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
And I am a Christian, for what it’s worth, but I absolutely don’t care what gay people do. They can get married, give ambassadorships to their pets, have their grandparents mailed to Pluto, whatever they want. So long as they FINALLY SHUT THE FUCK UP, we’ll just call it a draw.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
So.. when Orson said he’ll love me forever… he… he lied? :’(
August 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=511
This is an excellent, detailed explanation of why you can’t do it.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
You definitely CANNOT push someone’s nose into their brain. It’s physically impossible. I’ve also studied martial arts, and if your teacher has told you this, he/she needs to hit the anatomy books again. The nose is cartilage, which in no way will ever be able to break through bone, no matter how hard you hit it. Nobody has ever been killed this way. It is fact. If you care to rebut this, try to find an incident in which it happened. You won’t.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Can I have a mormon girl to go along with a nice car? Pleeeeeeeease?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I want a nice car too.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I first read O. Scott Card’s rant against gay marriage a couple of weeks ago, and was totally pissed off. I just couldn’t believe that one of my (previously) favorite authors was such a frakking homophobe. His books always seemed to have a theme of tolerance in them, but obviously he himself doesn’t have any.
I don’t really know much about Mormonism’s tenets, but I know it is another form of Christianity, and I DO know that MOST forms of Christianity are crazy and self-contradicting in many ways (no, I’m not Christian, at least not the way it is seen today).
So Mormons are opposed to gays, big surprise. I’ve even read at places that Mormons believe that black people are the descendants of Cain, that God’s “mark” he placed on Cain was the black skin.
I can’t say that I will stop reading his stuff, especially if it’s a new book in the “Enderverse” which I love. I’ll just have to continue reading it with the proverbial grain of salt.
I’m used to people having bad things to say about authors I love. Many people, including my parents, have constantly tried to tell me that Robert A. Heinlein was a fascist, rascist, sexist pig; but oddly enough he wrote “Stranger in a Strange Land” that totally blows those claims out of the water.
I wonder what Card would say about a gay man marrying a lesbian woman? Or about a “straight” married couple in which one party ends up getting a sex change. Are these two situations “gay m,arriage” and thus should be banned?
August 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Reggaepunk41… is someone really forcing you to be gay? That seems like it would be a hard thing to do. Unless you’ve been kidnapped, drugged, and forced into prostitution. In that case, why are your abductors allowing you to post this sort of thing online. That’s just careless!
August 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Listen, I’m a huge OSC fan too. Read the whole shadow series, and ender’s game saga. (Shadow series isn’t complete though =\) If anyone has read any of his short stories or any of his lesser known novels, he explores homosexuality as well as older men having affairs with young boys (and by young boys i mean in the approximate age group of tweens).
Also, I did a report on Ender’s Game for english a few years ago and was reading interview after interview with different people about Ender’s Game. And in about half of them I got the sense he was a jackass and quite vain.
Also, when talking about those books he wrote that included homosexuality, he said that wasn’t the main point of the book. When everyone who has read those books remembers mainly that theme.
But I’m not surprised by this. And I think we should leave the poor old man alone. I’m sure this was partially a publicity stunt. And if I’m wrong, oh well.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:36 am
This is the perfect internet article. By which I mean it’s based on false assumptions, loaded with fashionable stereotypes, and written to appeal to simpleminded and self-righteous 14 to 22 year-olds.
I, by the way, think the obvious solution is that government should not be in the business of endorsing marriages of any sort. Anyone can marry in an institution that recognizes their union, but churches and employers who only wish to recognize 1 man/1 woman marriages are free to do so.
On the flip side, courts forcing their own opinions onto a public that doesn’t agree results in serious problems. Segregation, anyone? How about Kelo? (for those who don’t follow serious news, the Kelo decision means the gov’t can take your property from you by force and give it to another person or business that will pay more taxes). Everyone should be upset about judicial activism, but most people (including the author) just latch onto “Card is a homophobe” and completely miss the point.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Maybe you ought to take Gae out of your name then.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Wow.. this really is terrible news. Orson Scott Card is my favorite author of all time, and the Ender’s Game series is the best I’ve ever read. I really wish they would make a movie of it, like they’ve been talking about many times, but reading about this really makes me sad. I always thought of Card as a wonderful forward-thinker, but now I have to re-evaluate my opinion of him. I wish he could be the role model I took him for, but I’m afraid this reaffirms the reality that he’s just a person, and a bigoted one at that. Shame, shame… what a disappointment..
August 14th, 2008 at 2:21 am
heres four things i have to say
I HATE GAYS
I HATE ENDERS GAME SO MUCH BECAUSE ENDER IS A WHINEY BITCH WHOSE ASS I COULD KICK LIKE GOD KNOWS AT LEAST 829,291,031 TIMES IN FACT I BURNED THAT STUPID ASSED PIECE OF SHIT BOOK
I HATE ORSON SCOTT CARD
I HATE EVERYONE THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, WHY BECAUSE YOUR GAY DONT ENFORCE YOUR GAYASSEDNESS ONTO ME
August 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
As much as I agree that Card is a dick, I refuse to deny myself great literature, art, or music due to the personal beliefs of the creator.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
[...] Even supposedly intelligent people can say completely idiotic things. [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Very well said Michael! You’re parents raised you right!
August 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
OK, so OSC is clearly a weapons-grade dumbass.
But can’t we separate the man from his work?
I don’t believe the personal is political.
Seriously, think about it.
If we didn’t watch/listen to/read works created by people who were racist/sexist/anti-Semitic homophobic, or who held wackjob religious/social/political beliefs, or who were abusive to the people in their lives, or were just a-holes in general . . . life would be pretty boring.
You can be a reprehensible human being and still produce great art. Richard Wagner and Leni Reifenstahl spring to mind. Hell, even the late, great Isaac Hayes was a Scientologist . . .
August 13th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
[...] have been made so many times that I would get bored re-typing them all. Besides, cracked.com does a fantastic job ripping Card a new one, I couldn’t top [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
And yes, if you have not read Enders Game, your childhood was incomplete. Sorry.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for the article and driving your anger into Orson Scott card, and not making it an argument about Mormons.
Ya that was lame face of him to say.
Mormons rock.
Mormon girls are HOT. (every person that posted something about it in the comments is right.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Alesa:
No one is saying that the situation for gays in the US today is in any way like the holocaust.
What we ARE saying is that through history gays have been reviled and abused and killed on par with other discriminated and repressed groups. Gays WERE killed in the gas chambers of Natzi germay just like jews, gypsies, people with mental illnesses, and all kinds of political opponents. Jews bore the brunt of the hatred of course, and there were few openly gay people back then (since it was illigal all over the world, and you risked jail time, torture, lobotomy and absolute ostracizion from society) and being gay is easier to hide when you fear for your life, so numbers wise, we are talking about far fewer. That however does not change the intent. If you were found to be gay, well then you would be shipped right to a place where the only place out was through the chimeny. Mabe you should read up on it. The Natzis hated most people, not only Jews. Slavic people for instance, was seen as “untermench”, not quite human. Partly as a result of this about 22 million Russians died during WW2, most of them civillians.
But back to the gay thing. Being gay is illegal in many areas of the world, and even in most western countries, you could be thrown i jail for being gay until only a couple of decades ago (not even being black has ever been illiegal, all other comparisons aside).
Civil rights is about rights being denied or allowed for groups of people. Should one “rate” groups of people, and allow them rights based on what is most statistically common so that the largest groups have the most rights? Or should one allow any man or woman who lives in peace with his fellow man without causing harm to anyone, in persuit only of the happines of themselves and the people around them like everyone, else the same rights? In my opinion YES!
Imagine if there was a god, and he gave you this task: “The world will start a new, but this time with a set of rules, laws and rights allready in place. You, as you are now, will be in charge of deciding whitch groups have which rights in society. BUT, when the world starts a new, so will you, and you have no idea which group, race, gender, culture, ecomomic class and so forth you will belong to. Now COMMENCE puny human, I have some killing of innocents to attend to”.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
[...] Blogger Michael Swaim trekt dit slecht en gaat op hilarische wijze los. En terecht. Op Cracked.com. Stem of voeg toe aan: [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Great article. I loved OSC until I realized that most of his works are the same damn story over and over. The man’s a douche bag, whattcha gonna do.
And to everyone ranting and raving about the homo-menace: I know a couple of street corners you can go shout on. Why not build yourself a nice cardboard sign and get out there?
August 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
eviltwin94,
What about gay brothers or sisters who love each other? Can they get married? They won’t need to worry about having kids. They’re homosexuals/lesbians. And what if they’re born that way? Who are you to say gay siblings should be naturally repulsed? I think that’s an unfounded assumption.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Nathanial, you’re preaching to the choir on this one (kind of an ironic phrase in this context, eh?). I agree 100% that the lawsuit threat is a scare tactic, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen. It is entirely possible that the church will get sued, and like I said, while I won’t support the churches opinion or view on the matter, I will support their right to have one. Though, you are right, it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen up here in The Great White North, but Americans are a bit more litigious than everywhere else. Who knows, though? It isn’t a good argument one way or the other.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Eviltwin, I agree with your first paragraph, but I’d suggest being very careful when using the “against our nature” argument against incest. It’s much too easy to turn that around and say that being gay is against our nature as well. For someone who isn’t gay, our DNA repels us from performing gay acts as well as incestuous ones. Besides, for someone who would perform incest, they don’t have that same revulsion to it that most others have.
I think it’s much more appropriate to stick with the “consenting adults not hurting anyone else” argument.
I also don’t see the connection to child abuse that you’re making, but I’m no expert on the issue, so I’ll reserve judgement.
Basically, I agree with the general idea of what you’re saying, but I don’t like the particular argument you use to get there.
BTW, see you in the lake of fire!
August 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The B wrote: “Gamodon said: “”To tie this into the homosexual marriage thing, do any of you seriously believe that within ten years of gay marriage being legalized, Catholic, etc, churches will NOT be sued/prosecuted for discrimination by refusing to marry gays?””
Although others have pointed out that this hasn’t happened anywhere else that gay marriage has been allowed, I actually would tend to agree with you. It hasn’t been ten years yet, so just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.”
Well, as Wikipedia — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage — notes:
“The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California.”
So it has now been seven years, and not one case of someone suing to get married in a church that hates them has cropped up. Funny, that. I thought for SURE that at least the sky would have fallen by now, or something. But nope, not even a court case.
The B wrote: “I believe that it is quite probable that it will happen, and when it does, I will firmly be on the side of the church being sued. I think, however, that this ties into an unreasonable fear that anti-gay people have about allowing gay marriage - namely that they will be forced to condone it themselves. That isn’t what it means. If you don’t want it happening in your church, then I’ll strongly support your rights if someone tries to force you to do it anyway. However, just b\c it’s likely someone will take it overboard isn’t a reason to not allow gay marriage in the first place - that is what the court system is for.”
See, I don’t agree with you, B — I think this entire line of “argument” is nothing more than histrionic scare tactics, á la the whole polygamy/bestiality nonsense. Where I CAN agree with you is where you state: “As far as I know, no pro-gay marriage supporter is insisting that all religions must now marry them in their churches, but rather to get out of the way and allow them to get married elsewhere.”
August 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
i completly agree with trab, yay mormons! I alsoagree with eviltwin94 about the whole christians needing to act like christians, ant the mind your own f*ing business thing. if it’s not hurting you leave it alone
August 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
kitsonas wrote: “Nathanial, Should i call you incestphobic? Or polygamyphobic? Gay people don’t care about the oppressions the other minority groups suffer? Funny, i thought gays were marching together with blacks to defend civil rights.”
I have yet to hear any serious requests that I *do* support the rights of polygamists, or incest–unless you are one of the above?
kitsonas wrote: “I didn’t ask no rabbi, i ask for YOUR opinion, you are just afraid to admit that you don’t give a shit about civil rights, laws, morality, discrimination as long as it doesn’t happen to you.”
Now how would you get that idea? I just advised you to seek your answer to “morals” questions from those who claim to have some expertise in the field.
kitsonas wrote: “Answer to this: if you don’t care how other people feel, why should anyone care about how homosexuals feel? You hypocrite!”
So are you saying that you ARE a practitioner of incest, or bestiality, or polygamy? Right then… I feel sad for you. Pity, even. Is that better?
kitsonas wrote: “Don’t think you are being funny, you are being pathetic. You, quoting everything - answering nothing. That’s fine, we all understand that YOU don’t have the balls to have an OPINION*.”
If I was a woman would you accuse me of lacking the ovum to have an opinion? What do my testes (or lack of same) have to do with my intellectual or reasoning capacity?
kitsonas wrote: “*focus on that comment so you won’t have to answer to the rest. clever huh?”
Y’know, what, kitsonas? I just realized I’m starting a new Social Cholesterol Diet today: no more fatheads. So I guess I’m going to have to forego any more of these delightful tête-à-têtes with you. Ta, now!
August 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Man The B, comparing homosexual relationships to insest is a pretty sick ploy used by a lot of people on the other side of this to shock our emotions.
Here’s the thing: Homo’s who want to get married genuienly feel love for each other, they care about each other. Incest is something that is so basely wrong that our own DNA repels us from doing it. Plus incest hurts society by having children born with deformities that need constant care and making child abuse the next logical step.
Basically, the incest claim is null and void, because a consenting adult is in their right mind, and the human animal exists in such a state that if you are practicing incest, you are not in your right mind.
And before anyone gets to it, Child Abuse is committed by ’straight’ men against children of both genders. Many instances of child abuse spring from a hate of ones own sexuality (a man who has repressed his gayness so much that he has to hurt children to express it) or ar just sick indiviuals. Child abuse is a straight problem, not a gay problem before anyone makes that claim
(child abuse crisis clinic worker)
August 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I really interested if what Deekay723 said is really true. Anyone else heard of this before? I mean it sounds as if it could be true, but I’d like to see another source.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“You conservatives want to make government just small enough to fit inside our bedrooms” -Josh lieman THE WEST WING
I love all the people who are freaking out about what a dirty dirty liberal Swaim is. Get use to it. There aren’t any funny conservatives.
Also, I think he makes excellent points. If we’re going balls to the wall with that one Leviticus verse, why not others? Anyone out there wearing a poly-cotton blend must burn for it!
Also, was in not the J-man who said ‘Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s?” He is the dude who first proclaimed separation of church and state.
It’s a real shame that most Christian’s don’t act like real Christians. I’ve only met one in my whole life time who really believed in love and not judging people. I wish more Christians could focus on the great things about their religion rather than get all high and mighty and condemn perfectly good people for really stupid shit.
And finally, I think that the only politics we need to practice in this country is the ‘Mind your own Fucking Business’ party. You don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married!
I was JUST discussing this with a uber-christian friend of mine, and I know there’s no stopping the political right from trying to force the rest of the country to live by their standards, but for fucks sake, it’s such a non-issue I fell asleep five minutes into writing this comment.
I’ve never read Orson Scott Card, I’m not sure we need to condemn his literature because of his beliefs. Everyone is entiled to their own beliefs. It’s when we start forcing/legislating those beliefs that it becomes a problem. It’s very un-christian and un-american.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Kitsonas, you were making such good progress in your debating skills, but now it seems like you’ve regressed back to your old arguments. A shame really.
“”Personally, when someone dismisses my arguments without giving me real answers instead of calling me stupid - ignorant- etc. he just admits that he cannot answer.”"
I am at a complete loss to why you would say this - seriously, real answers have been given to your questions multiple times; maybe you’ve just chosen to ignore them so you can continue to say that we’re ignoring you?
“”Also, homosexuals never use the terms ethics and morality because obviously they think these are 2 things created by heterosexual bigots for making homosexuals feeling bad about themselves. Right?”"
In fact, many people here have used ethics and morality arguments, both for and against. Most reasonable people would say that anti-gay people are entitled to their ethics and morals, as long as they don’t try to infringe upon the ethics and morals of anyone else. To repeat for the hundredth time, so maybe you’ll actually see it this time - nobody is telling you that you must support gay marriage! Just accept that others feel different about it than you do, and they are entitled to the same rights as you.
“”Answer to this know: if i am having sex with my ADULT sister and my ADULT daughter (not while they are minors, i repeat NOT while they are minors say, 35 and 25 years old) who gets hurt? They are consenting ADULTS, it’s our decision. Do you consider this right or wrong and WHY? Would you call this situation immoral or there’s no such thing?
I am not trying to level these 2 situations, i just want a homosexual’s opinion about incest (between ADULTS) and if this group of people shouldn’t have the same rights you claim for yourselves.
Why a father who’s having sex with his ADULT daughter can’t demand from society to stop calling him monster? If society isn’t ready for incest that’s fucking bad, right?
Don’t tell me they are not the same thing, it’s about adults making their decision who want to fuck.”"
What you’re doing here is making up a situation that you think people can’t possibly support, and then saying that it’s the same as gay marriage, so we shouldn’t support gay marriage either. Unfortunately, the original assumption breaks down pretty quickly - an incestuous relationship between two consenting adults doesn’t harm anyone, thus it is supportable. I think most people would be against it, but there is nothing technically wrong with it. However, there is a BIG exception with this particular example, namely having kids. Genetically speaking, the children of such a union are at a much greater risk of having some type of deformity, so if a father and daughter want to have sex with each other, that’s fine, as long as they don’t plan to have children, because the children would be at risk for harm. Hopefully you understand how this works.
As well, polygamy has been mentioned in the same context as incest. This one is even easier - there is no problem with it! If you want to marry 32 different people then that’s fine with me. Who cares if gay marriage will lead to polygamy?
Gamodon said:
“”To tie this into the homosexual marriage thing, do any of you seriously believe that within ten years of gay marriage being legalized, Catholic, etc, churches will NOT be sued/prosecuted for discrimination by refusing to marry gays?”"
Although others have pointed out that this hasn’t happened anywhere else that gay marriage has been allowed, I actually would tend to agree with you. It hasn’t been ten years yet, so just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I believe that it is quite probable that it will happen, and when it does, I will firmly be on the side of the church being sued. I think, however, that this ties into an unreasonable fear that anti-gay people have about allowing gay marriage - namely that they will be forced to condone it themselves. That isn’t what it means. If you don’t want it happening in your church, then I’ll strongly support your rights if someone tries to force you to do it anyway. However, just b\c it’s likely someone will take it overboard isn’t a reason to not allow gay marriage in the first place - that is what the court system is for.
As far as I know, no pro-gay marriage supporter is insisting that all religions must now marry them in their churches, but rather to get out of the way and allow them to get married elsewhere.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
This really surprises me Orson Scott Card the man who envisioned peace among three alien races would like to invoke war over something as harmless as gay marriage.
I loved Ender’s Game and the rest of the series to a lesser extent but this has completely changed my opinion of him. I will never again read his books and I will advise others not to as well. I wondered if he was beginning to go insane. I mean look at his last books I like them but they are pretty out there.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Speaking as a devote mormon: I could not agree with you more.
I used to love Orson Scott Cards books, and he had revolutionary ideas…but this makes me sick.
I absolutely loved your comment:
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,”
because it speaks the truth.
Mormons are Christians. you can disagree, I really don’t care. But as someone who follows Christ, it isn’t our place to judge anyone else.
I’m not sure how I feel about homosexuals and morality itself. Its a complex subject. I don’t think they’re bad people, 2 of my best friends are gay (and ironically ex-mormon). I also don’t think its a “choice” or something stupid like that. Really what I think is: Its none of my business. They can live their lives and be happy. I don’t think less of them, and I will treat them the same as anyone else.
But regardless of any issues on how “moral” it is, it should still be legal for Gays to get married. People should have the right to do whatever they would like, so long as it isn’t hurting anyone else. Someone who I respect very much encouraged me to vote to repeal the gay marriage law passed in California in a church meeting. I honestly wanted to walk out right then and there.
Mormons need to be progressive. If you don’t want to encourage homosexuality, fine, don’t. Just like you wouldn’t encourage smoking. But to make it illegal? why don’t you just tread on their freedoms as a human being.
TL;DR?
Momon here; This article rocks; support gay marriage.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
And you guys lay off the mormons, we rock. every group has a few bad eggs. also we don’t practice polygamy so mmmmmm (i’m sticking my toung(?) out at you)
August 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
thats ok nathanial and i’m sorry I did forget about the whole pink triangle thing. Please forgive me.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
[...] mind of a caveman » Orson Scott Card Wants YOU (To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace) | Cracked.com There is no question, absolutely none at all, that you are fighting a battle you can’t win. In a [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Nathanial,
Should i call you incestphobic?
Or polygamyphobic?
Gay people don’t care about the oppressions the other minority groups suffer? Funny, i thought gays were marching together with blacks to defend civil rights.
I didn’t ask no rabbi, i ask for YOUR opinion, you are just afraid to admit that you don’t give a shit about civil rights, laws, morality, discrimination as long as it doesn’t happen to you.
Answer to this: if you don’t care how other people feel, why should anyone care about how homosexuals feel?
You hypocrite!
Don’t think you are being funny, you are being pathetic.
You, quoting everything - answering nothing.
That’s fine, we all understand that YOU don’t have the balls to have an OPINION*.
*focus on that comment so you won’t have to answer to the rest. clever huh?
August 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I was kind of down on Cracked for a while…this rant has redeemed the site for me.
I’ve always *liked* Ender’s Game, never loved it, though I’ve always (thought) I respected Card. Well, obviously I didn’t know much about him–I had no idea he was Mormon…be wary of him. Mormon bigots are scariest.
Thanks a bunch.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
CORRECTION: I wrote “Well, as I just told alesa above, I’ll leave it to the incest/polygamy crowd to stand up for their *own* rights. It seems she’s taking care of incest; are you going to be the water-carrier for polygamy, now?”
I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN: Well, as I just told kitsonas above, I’ll leave it to the incest/polygamy crowd to stand up for their *own* rights. It seems she’s taking care of incest; are you going to be the water-carrier for polygamy, now?
Sorry, alesa!!
August 13th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jeff wrote: “My view? Homosexuals should have the same legal protections provided by a marriage certificate to heterosexual couples. Marraige in a church is a religeous and cultural act not a civil act. They are entitled legally to the former and only priviledge to experience the latter if soem organization decides to throw a party in their honor. That is all marraige is. I cannot honestly see how we can argue against civil union between two men or women.”
Great. Let’s differentiate by calling them “religious marriage” and “civil marriage”, ‘kay?
Jeff wrote: “That said, the only good case I have ever heard againt the civil union is the one stating that civil union should only extend to men and women because it is the cultural and evolutionary standard around which the stability of our very society is built. This is true and its supporters have a very strong case. Where would we draw the line? Should a man be allowed to form a legal union with his dog? Should legal unions be allowed between large groups of people? OSC actually made this point in a not a direct manner. In ever case so far where we have extended civil protections to non-traditional situations we find ourselves on the slippery slope.”
Such a thing has not happened ANYWHERE — Spain, Holland, Canada, South Africa or Sweden — where equal marriage is a fact. So ’scuse me, but your ridiculous hyperbole is showing.
Jeff wrote: “There is no reason not to expect that in short order after passing legal rights of marriage to homosexual couples that the pursuit of multiple couple partnerships will be made. Ironic a Mormon is arguing against that path huh? I am talking about OSC there btw. It will also not take long for people to attempt cases for marrying their pets etc…Before you say that is crazy, I assure you that it is no more crazy than legal same sex marriage would have been to some one 30 years ago.”
Well, as I just told alesa above, I’ll leave it to the incest/polygamy crowd to stand up for their *own* rights. It seems she’s taking care of incest; are you going to be the water-carrier for polygamy, now?
August 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
And the scary thing is his latest crappy book, Empire, discusses (badly and terribly written) civil war in the USA… And Enders Game becomes a lot more fun if you replace ‘the buggers’ with ‘the USA’ and ‘everything good in the world’ with ‘the Mormon Nation’
August 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Please excuse the terrible witting above i was in a hurry and had a lot to say. Please also consider adding an editing/preview option to your forum ala Digg. So people like myself have a chance to review their post and edit the content.
Thanks,
Jeff
August 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
alesa wrote: “Oh and nathanial i agree with you on some points but your an idiot for comparing gay rights to the holocaust. I know they got it bad but until the gov. startes rounding them up and gasing them there is no comparison.”
’scuse me, alesa, but that’s exactly what they did do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gay_men_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
Never heard of the Pink Triangle? The *difference* was that after Auschwitz was liberated, the surviving Jews, Roma, trade unionists, handicapped, etc. were sent to hospital and then released. The queers were shipped off to prison.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“Note to self, religion freaky.” –Buffy the Vampire Slayer 1999
August 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Did you actually read his whole arcticle? The whole thing, not just a summary or review.
Now I am not a big supporter of the Mormons and agree they are devoid of logic often times.However, I think you are going WAY over the top in your assessment of his comments. The rhetoric is at the beginning a little extreme but once you actually read his comments he is making a case from his point of view that is not extreme but well reasoned. Even if I do not agree with all its premises.
Also, to think that OSC is doomed to the cultural trash heap of history is to ignore the far more egregious and extreme views of much more beloved public figures and authors in time for views that make his seem absolutely pro-gay. Can we say Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Greene, George Washington, Winston Churchill. Even Samual Clemens by your standard would todau be considered in the same breath as Hitler.
This is my first time finding your site and I took the time to read several of your post and found them interesting and entertaining. However you marginalize yourself by being an extremist. The very thing you are accusing OSC of being seems to have been more fully accomplished by your own diatribe in response.
My view? Homosexuals should have the same legal protections provided by a marriage certificate to heterosexual couples. Marraige in a church is a religeous and cultural act not a civil act. They are entitled legally to the former and only priviledge to experience the latter if soem organization decides to throw a party in their honor. That is all marraige is. I cannot honestly see how we can argue against civil union between two men or women.
That said, the only good case I have ever heard againt the civil union is the one stating that civil union should only extend to men and women because it is the cultural and evolutionary standard around which the stability of our very society is built. This is true and its supporters have a very strong case. Where would we draw the line? Should a man be allowed to form a legal union with his dog? Should legal unions be allowed between large groups of people? OSC actually made this point in a not a direct manner. In ever case so far where we have extended civil protections to non-traditional situations we find ourselves on the slippery slope.
There is no reason not to expect that in short order after passing legal rights of marriage to homosexual couples that the pursuit of multiple couple partnerships will be made. Ironic a Mormon is arguing against that path huh? I am talking about OSC there btw. It will also not take long for people to attempt cases for marrying their pets etc…Before you say that is crazy, I assure you that it is no more crazy than legal same sex marriage would have been to some one 30 years ago.
The point here is that you seem to be more extreme than OSC on this issue and I seriously doubt you read his whole article on the subject. If you did you need to re-read it. It is no where near as extreme as you have portrayed it to be.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am
kitsonas wrote: “In a long time ago marriage between relatives was routine. Today it’s called incest. What homosexuals don’t want to answer is where, and why, they draw the line.
The majority of the heterosexuals here are saying that it’s okay to be gay but they draw a line when it comes to gay marriage.”
Really? I’d say the majority here (gay AND straight) are calling OSC an asshat, and folks like you bigots.
kitsonas wrote: “Homosexuals are saying gay marriage is fine but when someone asks about another group’s rights their only argument is that it’s not the same thing and you are being stupid. Personally, when someone dismisses my arguments without giving me real answers instead of calling me stupid - ignorant- etc. he just admits that he cannot answer.”
Maybe you should stop posting stupid statements.
kitsonas wrote: “Also, homosexuals never use the terms ethics and morality because obviously they think these are 2 things created by heterosexual bigots for making homosexuals feeling bad about themselves. Right?”
Balderdash. I use words like “ethics” and “morals” whenever applicable. For instance, “Bigotry is immoral”, or “James Dobson’s so-called ‘ethics’ are corrupt and sleazy.”
kitsonas wrote: “Answer to this know: if i am having sex with my ADULT sister and my ADULT daughter (not while they are minors, i repeat NOT while they are minors say, 35 and 25 years old) who gets hurt? They are consenting ADULTS, it’s our decision. Do you consider this right or wrong and WHY? Would you call this situation immoral or there’s no such thing?”
Why don’t you ask a priest or Rabbi? Tell him to look up the section where Lot had sex with his two daughters and got them pregnant. Ask them if THAT was “moral”.
kitsonas wrote: “I am not trying to level these 2 situations, i just want a homosexual’s opinion about incest (between ADULTS) and if this group of people shouldn’t have the same rights you claim for yourselves. Why a father who’s having sex with his ADULT daughter can’t demand from society to stop calling him monster? If society isn’t ready for incest that’s fucking bad, right?
Don’t tell me they are not the same thing, it’s about adults making their decision who want to fuck.”
Well, I’ll just wait for the “incest crowd” to organize and stand up for their OWN rights, they way we queers have been doing for the past 40 years. Or are you taking that step right here and now — speaking up for the misunderstood and marginalized “incest crowd”? Don’t let me crimp your style now… go ahead and tell us how you feel.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
whats the record for most comments on a cracked post?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This place is getting too deep for me . . . I’m going back to Digitalfuntown.com for a laugh and a couple of gay jokes. That should do the trick.
http://www.digitalfuntown.com/showpage.php?showid=5
August 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
In a long time ago marriage between relatives was routine.
Today it’s called incest.
What homosexuals don’t want to answer is where, and why, they draw the line.
The majority of the heterosexuals here are saying that it’s okay to be gay but they draw a line when it comes to gay marriage.
Homosexuals are saying gay marriage is fine but when someone asks about another group’s rights their only argument is that it’s not the same thing and you are being stupid.
Personally, when someone dismisses my arguments without giving me real answers instead of calling me stupid - ignorant- etc. he just admits that he cannot answer.
Also, homosexuals never use the terms ethics and morality because obviously they think these are 2 things created by heterosexual bigots for making homosexuals feeling bad about themselves. Right?
Answer to this know: if i am having sex with my ADULT sister and my ADULT daughter (not while they are minors, i repeat NOT while they are minors say, 35 and 25 years old) who gets hurt? They are consenting ADULTS, it’s our decision. Do you consider this right or wrong and WHY? Would you call this situation immoral or there’s no such thing?
I am not trying to level these 2 situations, i just want a homosexual’s opinion about incest (between ADULTS) and if this group of people shouldn’t have the same rights you claim for yourselves.
Why a father who’s having sex with his ADULT daughter can’t demand from society to stop calling him monster? If society isn’t ready for incest that’s fucking bad, right?
Don’t tell me they are not the same thing, it’s about adults making their decision who want to fuck.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I love you more than ANYTHING right now, Swaim.
Not in a gay way, though.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:16 am
If you want to bring morals into the debate, let’s think of it this way:
Inciting violence, particularly against a weaker minority group, is just as bad as committing violence, because you’re endorsing the act and saying that in this case, it’s justified.
Same goes for inciting revolution, which is in fact treason. Leaders are elected democratically to make decisions - it’s not the government “forcing their will upon the people” when the people elected the government.
OSC just aligned himself with this scum: http://www.godhatesfags.com/
They picketed 9/11 memorials, Iraq war veteran funerals, and anything involving the deaths of innocents, based on the assumption that God (Jesus) was killing people for being too acceptant of gays.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The war against homosexual marriage is a losing battle. Mainly because they have no ammunition other than “God says it’s wrong” and “It’s unnatural!”. At that, I have to roll my eyes and resist poking the holes in their argument before it deflates like bubble wrap.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:01 am
alesa wrote: “Oh and nathanial i agree with you on some points but your an idiot for comparing gay rights to the holocaust. I know they got it bad but until the gov. startes rounding them up and gasing them there is no comparison.”
’scuse me, alesa, but that’s exactly what they did do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gay_men_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/27/155228.shtml
Never heard of the Pink Triangle? The *difference* was that after Auschwitz was liberated, the surviving Jews, Roma, trade unionists, handicapped, etc. were sent to hospital and then released. The queers were shipped off to prison.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Absolutely brilliant post.
I had the very same opinion as you, after reading the Ender saga, I signed up for the Intergalactic Medicine show, and it became quite clear that Card is nothing more than a raving loon who happened to stumble upon a fantastic idea for a book…
August 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
497th!!!! I agree with shazbot. I’m all for everyone minding there own buisness. Oh and nathanial i agree with you on some points but your an idiot for comparing gay rights to the holocaust. I know they got it bad but until the gov. startes rounding them up and gasing them there is no comparison.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:52 am
go ahead and hate fags, just don’t make laws against things they want to do when they don’t affect other people’s rights to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Gamodon wrote: “do any of you seriously believe that within ten years of gay marriage being legalized, Catholic, etc, churches will NOT be sued/prosecuted for discrimination by refusing to marry gays?”
Hasn’t happened ANYWHERE that has equal marriage, any more than any divorced, or non-Catholic couples have sued the Catholic churches for the same reason. So thanks for the red herring panic-button, but no, I CAN’T see that happening. (Why would you WANT to get married in a church that hated you?)
August 13th, 2008 at 8:48 am
[...] Even supposedly intelligent people can say completely idiotic things. [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am
A very important point to make, especially for young liberals.
You don’t have a “right” if someone else has to do work, possibly against their will, or for cheaper than they’d want to, to provide you that right. Healthcare is a good example of this.
To tie this into the homosexual marriage thing, do any of you seriously believe that within ten years of gay marriage being legalized, Catholic, etc, churches will NOT be sued/prosecuted for discrimination by refusing to marry gays?
August 13th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Why should a person’s political or religious views make their work less enjoyable? If my favourite author came out tomorrow and said he wants to kill all the Jews, I would still read his books, even though I disagree with him on that point. To swear never to read anything else by an author you enjoy just because they said something you don’t like is just stupid and reactionary, and really won’t accomplish anything other than depriving you of some pleasure.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Mr. Swaim - excellent post.
There are lots of things people have mentioned that I’d like to comment on, but the first one is how to be an honorary lesbian. It’s easy, according to this story.
A man and a woman were sitting next to each other in a bar. The man turned to the woman and said “I’m a cowboy. All day I ride the range on the back of a horse, herd and rope cattle, it’s what I do.”
The woman looked at him and said “I’m a lesbian. I love women. Every day I think about women. It’s what I do.” Then she left.
The cowboy sat there with a bemused expression on his face. A friend of his walked up and said “What’s wrong?”
The cowboy replied “All this time, I thought I was a cowboy. Turns out I’m a lesbian.”
I would come home from school after learning about stuff like peanut butter and be met with “African-Americans have never made any contribution to the USA” and “African-Americans are the beasts in the field that the Bible mentions.” so I do know that there can be a dichotomy between what a school teaches and what is taught at home. The school taught facts, home tried to teach “morals”. (no, they didn’t say “African-American”). I just learned not to bother the people at home with facts, it kept me from getting whipped.
The sexual/marriage age of consent in my State was 16 since it first became a State. It was only changed to 18 in the last few years as some programs would have lost funding if it wasn’t. There were many states in the USA that had lower ages of consent for marriage/sex, some as low as 11. Once you got married you became an adult in the eyes of the state. Does the fact that many marriages in the past would be illegal today cheapen marriage?
In the 1950’s the added “one nation under god” to the pledge of allegiance. Just a fact. If it was taken back out that would mean we’d be saying the same pledge as the soldiers of WWII. Inserted just because.
The funniest thing about the ‘gays will cheapen marriage’ argument is that it seems to be gay people who are the ones cherishing marriage. Every day you read about celebrities divorcing or affairs or Republicans leaving their spouses because the spouses are sick or injured, yet let two gay people in a 50 year relationship want to get married and people come screaming from every nook and cranny “They’ll destroy the sanctity of marriage.”. “My marriage will be cheapened if they can get married.” and on and on.
These people must have some bad marriages if they can be affected by Bob and Phil getting married 2,000 miles away. Rather than deserving scorn, maybe they just deserve pity.
I have read both the ‘Ender’s Game” series and the “Ender’s Shadow” series. I found them ok, but the sheer improbability of the pequinos blew it for me. It is always interesting to see how people will use the “I’m the outsider that everyone picked on and here I am saving the world” formula or the “quest to atone for the terrible thing I did” formula. I even gave him props for the slight rip off of a plot device in the Gor series. But at the end I found both series a little soulless.
I’ve been too serious. BOOBIES!!!!!
August 13th, 2008 at 4:16 am
You “progressives” are all a bunch of mentally regressive eunuchs, and if we listen to you, the mooselimb ragheads will eat us all alive. In any case, you faggots and faggot supporters are all doomed to the lake of fire and quite possibly to a head-chopping in advance of that. Orson Scott Card is right, and it is you fagtard fools who will one day be utterly reviled by all sane persons just as the slavemasters now are. Indeed, this fraudulent word “homophobia” will one day earn the same respect as the word “drapetomania” which referred to a slave’s desire to run away from his master (which desire, according to the psychoanalysts of the day, was obviously insane). Using the word “homophobe” for its part will be considered the equivalent of spouting the word “nigger” in polite company. Normally I’d recommend autofellatio to you, but you faggots are already attempting that with your fake (fag) marriages, I notice…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Well, for all those who say, “Well, we should leave marriage to the churches, and have a separate institution (and name) for civil legal unions”… good luck getting such a thing recognized internationally. Civil union =/= marriage under international law.
I live in a progressive country, that recognizes my civil rights and has full marriage equality, but for those of you who are so hot on the “civil union” option, I say why don’t you try it out first, and tell us all how well it works. We’ll wait right here for ya…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:43 am
ok first civil rights what person gets blasted, killed, hung anything today? very few black peoples a few more gay people second just cuz he’s a homphobe doesn’t mean he isn’t a good writer isn’t the point of equality looking away from what people believe, do, say, are and looking more at their contributions he’s a good writer i like his books i’m bi i don’t give a flying fuck so in his spare time he’s a douch oh well he still wrote some bad ass stories but good article people now days all they do is compare and complain ok so way back in the day some black people were slaves, so were some mexicians some chinese you don’t hear them bitching just the black people who it still matters to…well ya know what ITS OVER no more slavery GET OVER IT!!! you act like bigger douches because of it anyways its fucking rediculous just calm the fuck down look around you see that your fuckin attitude is makin the world worse see that us white folks we’re calm we treat you with respect you treat us like ass holes i’m not racist i just think that oops some mistakes were made we’re all different people now so realize that we didn’t enslave your ancistors realize also that back in africa tribes enslave each other slavery happens its done now go to a shrink talk out your issues and treat everyone else like they’re a human being too…fuck…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands.
Nobody cares.
Apart from gay people, Muslims and Christian fanatics of coarse.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:38 am
@ The B
First of all, that’s not even close to what Leon said, maybe you should reread it.
Secondly, trying to make fun of someone for having a belief that billions of people believe is kind of boring, it’s not funny, it’s overdone (Carlos Mencia). I guess it amuses you, but it would be better if you just kept to yourself and laughed, as it would for all of us, instead of these pointless internet posts.
Thirdly, accusing them of not being able to think is extremely ignorant and I realise that you were joking, but it’s unneccesary. It’s makes more sense than believing in evolution, imho. I’m not talking about just 6,000 years however. That can be disproven.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure I liked most of the things you have said “The B”, I’m not trying to take a shot at you.
Also, I love OSC’s books, I don’t care what he says, that doesn’t matter to me.
I could talk about homosexuality but I won’t cause I’m tired. I don’t even know if this post will make sense, but I don’t care.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:02 am
There were people like Orson Scott Card when they gave women the right to vote and freed the blacks. Its no big deal.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Dear God, this is sad…
I’m a protestant from the South, and I’m more liberal than the half of the people responding here.
That’s just sad. Speaking as a Christian, I’m for gay marriage. I’m for gay rights in general, and (while we’re on the subject) the separation of church and state. Until every religion and creed, Universally, (and including the atheists and agnostics) believe that gay marriage is wrong, or there is compelling legal and social argument for it without violating individual rights - then gay marriage should be legally recognized. If the government cannot be in the business of defining marriage, then it should not be recognizing any marriage at all, and we should all be treated as legally separate citizens. Gay and straight alike.
Personally I don’t think we should be conflating legal marriage with religious marriage - it’s pretty easy to get either without the other, why not disassociate them entirely? Then religious groups can stop caring about the legal definition (especially if we get the gov’t to start calling it something else).
But seriously - revolution? Just because the court said we have to treat gays as equals?
I’m sorry, but that’s not just morally reprehensible, it’s just plain stupid.
*myrlyn now dons an asbestos lined suit*
August 13th, 2008 at 12:59 am
LMA 219 seems to be one of the very few on this angry, Nazi-comparison-filled thread (and there’s no quicker way to lose the argument than to go to the Nazi well, people: neither OSC or the writer of this thread could be accurately described as Nazi’s by anyone who has even a passing knowledge of history) to point out the obvious with this problem: That it’s not a matter for the government AT ALL.
Marriage is essentially a religious pact, an agreement to live faithfully and love one person above all else, and it pertains to concepts of no rightful concern to a limited, secular government. The US has unfortunately joined most other nations of the world in attaching benefits to marriage on a secular level, biasing our tax and medical systems towards those engaged in this idea of religious fidelity. That should stop. The government should get out of the business of marriage entirely, and end tax breaks for marrieds, courthouse licenses and medical benefits which could just as easily be legally transferred to any friend of the ailing (or property from the deceased, etc.) as to some husband/wife.
This religious concept to return to it’s roots and exist only in the minds and hearts of those “marrieds” and maybe the books or those houses of worship in which they choose to hitch. Gay or straight, if a church will marry you or not should have no bearing on anyone’s life or need to share property and cohabitate except as a sweet (moral?) gesture between two people, with no legal or societal need or obligation to have that gesture accepted or rewarded by any other soul on earth. Basically, marriage should be akin to a baby shower or birthday party: sweet, fun…but unnecessary.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Michael, you are truly one who stands up for what is right. So many people are blinded by this very topic and I simply cannot understand why we as a people continue to judge others for their sexual preference.
Keep up the good work.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Anyone else thinks he stole the stories from a decent person?
Seems to have a lot of decent people, catholics and catholics acting decently to be written by a mormon IMHO
August 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I’d write a long rant on how retarded this makes Orson Scott Card, and how gay marriage shouldn’t even be an issue, but you’ve said it all perfectly.
So, erm, applause. And I love you.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The irony of Card’s views is that he is a Mormon. Mormon’s frequently like to recall the time when their’s was a young religion severely persecuted by other Americans who saw them as a bunch of immoral heretics.
Sound familiar?
Yet Card takes an odd stance in that he is a frequent proponent of his own right to his religion while, in the case of homosexuality, arguing that people whose behavior goes against the religious beliefs of the majority can and should expect to be treated as criminals. Ironic because that’s how the early Mormons were treated and I have never seen any evidence that Card endorses the idea that freedom of (or from) religious belief should be subject to the will of the majority.
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is what this country is based on. Sometimes that means you have accept that your neighbor is your equal whether you like it or not.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
That’s… interesting. And not at all what Card actually said.
Note that he:
1) Argues against “legislating from the bench”- judges pushing agendas in defiance of existing law and precedent. You don’t touch on that, I assume because you like the agenda being pushed… but in a society based on laws, this is still a Very Bad Idea.
2) Doesn’t actually call for revolution- he just says it’s basically inevitable. That’s a fine difference, but a pretty important one.
The argument that more rights are automatically good is also troubling, because there are lots of things we outlaw that are perfectly reasonable and good to- pedophilia is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others. Homosexual marriage may or may not be a good right to have, but you can’t just say, “It’s something people will be able to do that they couldn’t before! It MUST be good.”
August 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Great article. But I’ve noticed a trend in the comments here.
Again and again I keep reading comments of people calling Swaim intolerant for his opinion against gay-bashers. While it’s true that it’s our right to spread our opinions, an opinion that’s AGAINST an opinion is not intolerance, it’s just more OPINION. It’s Swaim’s (and judging by the posts, many others’) opinion that Orson Scott Card’s opinion is bullshit, so you can just deal with it.
Besides that, it’d be different if Swaim said that Card should never be able to say his opinion again. Saying that you disagree with gay marriage is opinion, but going out of your way to fight for and declare that they should never have the ability to BE married is intolerance. So the rule applies for opinions too; saying someone’s opinion is stupid is just your own opinion, but saying that your opponent should never get to have an opinion again and actually leading a crusade to stop him? THAT’S intolerance.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Um, if you actually read OSC’s article - http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586 - you’ll see that Orson Scott Card is not condemming homosexuality. He’s condemming three things: 1) the state assuming the power to redefine marriage; 2) heterosexual marriages that corrupt the definition of marriage through failing; and 3) people who automatically assign the label “homophobe” to someone who opposes gay rights.
Gays can live respectably - do whatever they want, really - except call themselves a married couple, because marriage is a unique bond that unites the very different lives of a man and a woman. All that OSC is saying is that a bond between a man and a woman is different than a bond between two men or two women, and that those who see that bond as sacred should protect its sanctity, both by preserving it in their own lives - not divorcing, abusing their spouses, etc. - and by protecting the corruption of its image and definition.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“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.””
Yup. I love Robert E. Howard’s work, but the man was an awful racist. It’s just something you have to accept about the writer. Don’t burn Card’s work because you disagree with his crazy ideas.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Leon, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, or if you actually think that gay marriage will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the human race. If you’re serious then what the hell are you doing on the Internets - shouldn’t you be holed up in an armoured compound fervently reading your bible or something? Seriously, how do you even have the mental capacity to type?
By the way, if Adam and Eve doomed us all, then why has God waited 6000 years to destroy us? Does he/she/it have that busy a schedule? Does it just take a lot of time to wipe out humanity? Is he/she/it just dragging it out to torture us?
Oh wait a second! You said 6000 years ago - that means you’re one of those biblical literalists who thinks everything was created a short time ago! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! In that case, sorry about all those questions I just asked, I know thinking hurts your brain.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You freakin rock, dude. Thanks for posting this and exposing Card for who he is.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
[...] Scott Card has lost his mind. He is calling for a revolution because of The Gay Menace. That’s right, people. The Mormon guy who wrote all those books about the innocence of a child [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I think the future will eventually hold one or two events: Either Mr Card will come out of the closet (and yes, I do suspect he’s a closet homosexual, having also read his books), and appologise, or he will end up committing suicide.
Why gay marriage is even an issue, appalls me. If you think it’s wrong for gays to get married, don’t marry them! In what state are people being forced into marriage, in these United States?
Personally, I love my rainbow brothers and sisters, because they mean either more available women, or more hot lesbian action. Where’s the problem? It’s a win-win situation.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Everyone who wants to be gay and get married, go ahead, there’s no future in the human race as we know it anyways, so all the misfits, sickos, physcos and every other moronic, idiotic human form can join them.
Man has defied divine law ever since Adam & Eve took the first step and plunged the entire human race into obliviation. It took 6000 years to do it and very soon this system could be all over in 24 hours.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Even though you just ruined my life by pointing out that one of my favorite authors is a complete douchebag, I still love you for writing this.
“Bigots armed with the intransigence of religion are rarely swayed”
I can almost hear Barack Obama saying that. yeah, you’re that good.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I want to know where the gay people who don’t actually want to get married are… You know, the ones who don’t actually WANT to be compared to everyone else, the ones who enjoy being GAY and PROUD. There are tons of people who are single and happy, tons of people who are married and happy without wanting children, tons of people who have children and are happy being single.
At the end of the day, “No, I think there’s just one kind of folks…folks.”
-To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
August 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
No it doesn’t mention anything “for” marriage, but the Eighth amendment, by its wording, should prohibit it for all.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Its time for me to call bullshit. Everyone keeps talking about peoples rights. Can someone please show me where in the us constitution anyone, gay straight black or white, is gaurenteed the right to marry? I’ll be waiting.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It’s too late for that now. We should have stopped it before the government got corrupted to the point of allowing such an abomination (and if I’M not mistaken, that’s what God called them; the ancient Hebrew way of saying it, at least) to thrive and take over our society. It’s a true mental illness, and rather than legalizing it, we should be helping the people who suffer from it by giving them psychiatric help, like they offer in Greece. I don’t blame the people who developed this instinctive deformity, and I certainly don’t wish any harm upon them, but homosexuality should not be accepted as a normal aspect of society either. The glorification of that evil through “pride parades” and the media needs to stop, especially now that it’s invading the constitutional religious rights granted in both Canada and the US. A fight for that is worth fighting for.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I found this article to be in poor taste and its negativity toward sensitive religious and political topics a dissapointment.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
That was just beautiful. Seriously. And Card has also seen the last of my money.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Age of consent in the U.S. varies from state to state, but is anywhere from 14 to 18.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Kitsonas, congrats on finally coming up with a different argument, but unfortunately this one is an old and tired one. It posits that it is more important to not offend the sensibilities of a large portion of the population at the expense of denying another group their rights. There will always be someone(s) who is vehemently opposed to gay rights, so at what point do we decide society is ready for it? When less than 50% of the population is against it? 25%? 10%? Social change that is inevitable and will benefit a group of people while not hurting anyone else should not have to wait until a few more people are “ready” for it. If you’re not ready for it, then frankly, too fucking bad. Grow up and adjust - not that there is really all that much to adjust to.
And I find it hard to believe that a society went from completely against gays to not caring about gay marriage in the space of 5 years.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
High five on the opinions and ideals, although being Mormon (and a mathematician) I *almost* take issue with your statement about members of our church being particularly impervious to logic. Actually, I’d tend to agree.
I’m a little disappointed that Orson Scott Card (and other Mormons) has strayed so far from the actual attitudes of the LDS Church on this issue. The Church takes a fairly non-involved stance on gay marriages from a legal standpoint: Legal gay marriages are OK. It’s just that they won’t be sanctified in the religious ceremony reserved for heterosexual marriages within the Church.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m from Ohio and I’m going to fight to the death my right to own my tumbledown piece of shit house! DAMMIT!!!!
hehe
August 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
O.S. Card has the right to say his silly bigoted drivel.
You (and I) have the right to disagree with it.
His being a silly bigoted driveller (yes, that’s not a real word) does not give us the right to call for his blood…
Send him socks. many many socks.
with instructions for insertion into his mouth.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
wow. i think the amount of comments regarding this one post is absoloutely mind blowing.
as in mind-blowingly retarded.
I thought the article was well written, funny, and hit the issue head on.
all the bigots can blow me.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Every society has it’s own ethics. Freedom doesn’t mean lack of control.
i.e. in Spain the age of consent is 13
in Denmark it’s 15
in USA it’s 18 (i think)
in Cameroon it’s illegal to have sex if you are not married.
Which one is right? Who’s the moral and why?
The point is, things change when time has come. Not when we want them to change.
“Κάθε πράγμα στον καιρό του κι ο κολιός τον Αύγουστο.”
5 years ago it was unheard in Greece to openly be gay. This summer in Tilos(Τήλος) island 2 guys got married by the mayor of the island and no one tried to lynch them. The average citizen just shrugged.
Trying to convince a society to accept something that’s not ready to accept is futile.
And as for OSC? you can’t learn an old dog new tricks!
P.S. if you can’t make decent arguments be silent, you are just making things worse.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The Christian (and Islamic and Jewish and a hundred others) is filled with complete absurdities. Over and over again. Card isn’t the first to selectively enforce some Bible commands (hate gays) but not others (stone gays, castrate himself for Jesus, keep women quiet in church, keep cripples out of church, etc).
So, a few friends of mine and I have launched a podcast poking fun of all the people who say they take the Bible literally. We do this by taking the Bible seriously ourselves and running with it. Every episode starts and ends with a hymn sung with different lyrics than you might expect (see below).
We’ve got an intro episode and a real episode up. The real episode is about Polygamy (the Bible is all for it, though all those people against gay marriage keep saying that if we let gays marry, the next thing you know, polygamy will be legal). Tomorrow will air Food. Then comes Fashion (no hair cutting for any women according to the New Testament), the Abortion (Bible **approved**), and a host of other episodes.
Here are the lyrics to a few of our songs:
To the Tune of “Amazing Grace”
Polygamy, it is allowed
That’s what the good Book reads
A man and wife can be a crowd,
When three or more has he.
To the Tune of “O Come All Ye faithful”
Abort all your babies! They’re not even human!
O, God doesn’t care ’till they’re one month — old.
Go and abort them, safe from retribution.
O come let us abort them.
O come let us abort them.
O come let us abort them.
Embryos!
We would love to have your ideas, suggestions, or even outright criticisms. Stop by http://www.FireAndbrimstoneShow.com for a listen. We’d love to see Mr Card, too!
August 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
@Draconis
a well informed and thought-out contribution to this amazingly enlightened discussion. like the point you made, that “…the fact that Card is a self-righteous bigot won’t prevent me from enjoying the books he wrote.” on the flip side, the face that he wrote several enjoyable works of science fiction won’t stop me from beating his ass if i ever met him in a dark alley. or at least informing him that the gay mafia was working on convert his firstborn.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Anal is the only possible option.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
When I read gamerjohn’s post (way up there somewhere) about judges being able to pass any law they want if they can overturn voters, I had to skim to the bottom and reply.
Judges are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. The only time they can - and must - overturn voters is when they vote law into effect which is contradictory to the Constitution of the United States. That’s their job, amigo. It was set up that way by the people who wrote the Constitution in the first place. We do not live in a Democracy, and we never have. We live in a Democratic Republic. The will of the people is not the last word, for exactly this reason. If it were, then the majority could pass all sorts of unfair laws. Say more people liked cats than dogs, and they decide to put it to a vote that people who own dogs should not be allowed to vote? What if people in states which have the letter “a” in them decide to vote that people in states without an “a” can’t legally own property? That would royally suck for people in Ohio and a few other unimportant states. This is why things are the way they are. It doesn’t grant judges the right to make up laws willy-nilly, so just calm down Sillyhead.
As an aside, I enjoyed Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow very much; the rest, eh, not so much. Long ago I learned that art stands on its own merit. It exists for what it is, separate from the artist. So the fact that Card is a self-righteous bigot won’t prevent me from enjoying the books he wrote. It will, however, prevent me from paying money for any he may write in the future. I’ll just wait to borrow them off a Mormon friend instead.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You, Sir, are a genius. I’ve loved Cracked.com long time, but now you are officially The Shit.
Godspeed, Excelsior and Bravo!
August 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
For a comedy site, this article (while certainly funny) is bang on in its serious recrimination of this intolerant neanderthal. What should anyone care about gays getting married? Unless you’re bound, gagged and being forced to enter a gay marriage against your will, it’s none of your fucking business.
Kudos, Michael.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Guys, by using the Bible as the justification or the negation of an argument is down right dark age reasoning. We live in the age of enlightenment where marriage is a choice and not some women trading contract to enlarge your farm. Furthermore what has given the bible, koran or whichever book the right to deign over human affairs. Therefor I reject any argument based on scriptures both those for and against man love. that is sinking to an intellectuel level akin to 1399, certain areas of Kentucky and basically the whole middle east.
Can anybody give me a moral or ethical reason to denounce gays without bringing in some text that was written in time when it was also believed that ghosts impregnated women.
I can tell you, religion is fucking up the USA far more than most of the other Theocracies around.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
As per my name, I will ignore the long, long, long list of comments, and single out the one issue that I took… er, issue with, in the short amount that I read.
“The Mormon guy who wrote all those books about the innocence of a child winning out over war and hatred…”
Innocence winning out over war and hatred? More like, innocence used as a weapon to commit genocide. Followed almost immediately by being told that, oh yeah, you know how you thought you just beat the best computer game ever? Well, no, sorry, you just killed billions and billions of sentient beings. gg, etc. I’m not seeing how killing off Ender’s innocence through manipulation makes the quoted section above.
Couldn’t care less about what the article is actually about, as per my name, I am a bitter, hermit-like person who lacks actual human contact.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Artificial” ain’t “normal”, he’s just common…
August 12th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Kitsonas, you’re simply being obstinate now. About a dozen different people have responded at length, myself included, to your fear that allowing gay marriage will obviate the need to allow for man on goldfish action or polygamy. Just because you’ve lost the argument but continue to bring it up doesn’t mean we’re ignoring you because we don’t know how to answer your brilliant conjecture. It means you either can’t read anything other than you’re own writing, or you realize you can’t defend your opinion rationally and have resorted to taking on the role of aggrieved victim whose voice won’t be heard. Unfortunately, your voice has been heard, and most people think you’re stupid. Give it up.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Artificial:
I’m sorry, but you’re the one sounding uneducated here. As someone has previously stated - “normal” and “average” are not the same thing. But let’s go with your definition for a second - even if being homosexual were “normal” somehow I don’t agree with your statement that you’d be wearing a dress and heels. First of all, because that’s something entirely different than homosexuality. Second, because recognizing another lifestyle as normal and acceptable doesn’t mean that you must adhere to that lifestyle. If that were true, no homosexuals would ever come out. They’d all spend there lives trying to adhere to the straight lifestyle.
Secondly - your argument that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. That’s wrong on so many levels. First of all, you can have one without the other. No institution had to be created in order for people to procreate. And what about infertile couples? Or couples that don’t intend to have children? Should they not be legally allowed to marry either? Or older women who are no longer biologically capable of concieving? Wow, there are an awful lot of people out there getting married who have no right to do so, based on your argument.
And Jam: Are you honestly saying that homosexuals have it better because they can pretend to be heterosexual? Being queer is easier ’cause anytime someone harrasses you you can just get your ass back in the closet? Yeah, fuck the freedom to be true to yourself. Just pretend to be someone you aren’t and suffer through it - at least that way you don’t get your ass kicked. Nevermind what absolute emotional torture that is, or how difficult it is to keep up. Or how you’re suspected and abused anyway. That is as absolutely stupid and ignorant as saying hey - there’s a simple solution for interracial couples who get harrassed. Black men just shouldn’t date white chicks. Or hey - those black kids back in the day would never have got hurt if they’d've just stayed out of the white people’s establishments. If everyone does what people want them to do, then no one gets hurt!
What utter bullshit. Once you’ve seen someone you love, like a brother or sister or best friend, cry until there aren’t tears anymore, just anguished sobs, because they’ve been kicked out of their homes and verbally and physically abused for simply being in love, then you can tell me about how those gays have it so much easier. After you drive your sister to the hospital because she got the shit kicked out of her for being a “dyke,” come talk to me then.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
[...] You know who will though? Michael Swaim of Cracked.Com. I already loved the site, but this morning a friend showed me this: ”Throughout the history of America, and indeed in the course of any developing culture, the universal…“ [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
holy fuck. just bring up, racism, abortion, gay marriage, religion, or pride of a country and you get a billion people giving their thoughts and beliefs on the subject. it would be fine if the people you got your beliefs from weren’t idiots from another website, or books and movies filled with propaganda. i’m not saying what i think is right, i’m just saying that just because YOU believe in something dosen’t mean you should force feed it to everyone with a computer.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Darkhorse wrote: “Nathaniel - I am in awe, and have no choice but to bow before the ginormous historical ignorance it takes to compare the Holocaust and related antisemitism or Black Slavery to anti-gay discrimination .”
Hey, I never said either was *worse* than the other, I just said they were similar. You are probably not aware of the many, many queers — black AND white — who marched in civil rights protests in the ’60s. Thank goodness that there are (and were) many black civil rights leaders — from MLK Jr. to Bayard Ruston to Ozzie Davis to Loretta Scott King — who agree that civil rights for African Americans and civil rights for queers are comparable and complimentary.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
See?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Look, to those people who don’t understand “degrees” or “comparisons”. When someone says that gay-rights etc are civil rights issues, that doesn’t mean they are saying that gays have gone through the exact same challenges as blacks or Jews. In this particular three way race to see who has been more oppressed, it goes blacks by a long shot, then Jews, then gays. Seriously, just because gays haven’t been oppressed as much as blacks doesn’t mean this isn’t a civil rights issue - use your fucking brains for a second! It IS possible to be oppressed even if you aren’t black, you don’t own a monopoly on it. Us white heterosexual males have worked long and hard through thousands of years to oppress a diverse range of peoples, cultures and genders, don’t limit us now.
Kitsonas, I think people are tiring of you bringing up the same stupid argument over and over again - look up the definition of “informed consent” before you continue to embarrass yourself with ridiculous comparisons.
And, to whoever it was that said that not everyone who’s against gay marriage is a homophobe. What if I were to say:
“I don’t have a problem with black people living together or having their weird sex, but I don’t think they should be allowed to get married like me. Why aren’t they just happy calling it a civil union and leaving it at that? They’d have the same rights as me. That doesn’t mean I’m racist, I just think some things are sacred, and black people shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a ‘married’ couple. That should be reserved for a union between a white man and a white woman.”
Is that as bad as the KKK Grand Wizard calling for the repeal of emancipation and stringing up blacks to the nearest tree? Obviously not, but it’s still racism.
Frankly, all of this doesn’t really matter - most gays aren’t trying to change your beliefs, they just want the same rights as you do. Why is this so difficult to understand?
But what the hell do I know, I’m a Canadian. Our lakes and rivers are already starting to glow from the eternal hellfire of damnation ever since we allowed the gays to get married.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
DCB and Darkhorse,
please stop making annoying comments, you will not get any serious answers.
Comparing gay marriage with polygamy? That’s ridiculous!
Why? Because i can’t argue with that, that’s why!
August 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
HolyCow - to answer your question about what will happen if gay marriage becomes the norm, I refer you the ‘Drawn Together’ episode where gay marriage presaged the Earth getting taken over by laser-armed nazis riding dinosaurs. That’s some bad shit right there.
Anyhow, nothing *needs* to happen and nobody needs to get harmed to either enact or maintain social legislation that reflects a society’s cultural preference. For example, who’s hurt by polygamy? I wouldn’t mind a harem, but the law says that even if they’re consenting adults, I can’t have more than one wife (and vice versa if a woman wants more than one hubby). Or how about smoking weed - who’s harmed if I feel like toking every now and then? Only brain cells fried if I did would be mine, right? Law says I can’t do that, though. What if I woke up tomorrow, thought I was a woman in a man’s body, and decided to use the ladies’ restroom at the mall? My 6 foot bearded ass would be in jail w/ the quickness.
Point is, even if nobody is “harmed,” for now most of society thinks that marriage should be between men and women. And advocates for gay marriage don’t do their cause much good by demonizing the majority of the country, which happens to disagree w/ them, as nazis and bigots and what have you. No quicker way to turn potential supporters or fence sitters into steadfast opponents
August 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Nathaniel - I am in awe, and have no choice but to bow before the ginormous historical ignorance it takes to compare the Holocaust and related antisemitism or Black Slavery to anti-gay discrimination
August 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Funny that Card jumps on the USS Whackadoodle helmed by Rich Santorum and once again misses the point entirely. But maybe since Card seems to have planted his fat keister in the ranks of the Establishment as much as he possibly can (too bad on ole Twit Romney there Card), that is the point.
Because the real point is not “gay marriage”. The real point is equitable distribution of financial rights and benefits. It is the matter of someone earning the same rights and benefits in the workplace who si single as someone who is married. It is being able to determine who and what your “family” is in a way that does not penalize the single, the homosexual or the widowed or divorced. Being able to legally “marry” is not a gender issue or a sexual identification issue. It is having the same rights to distribute your ealth legally, assign your shared benefits legally whether you fly the rainbow flag from the porch or not. It means that single adults who maintain the financial burden of a live-in elderly parent can extend his or her insurance benefits to include that parent. Or child. Or sibling. It means that everyone is treated the same when it comes to being able to protect assets for whatever individual they wish to make their beneficiary. And state inheritance laws fully back that up.
Maybe if Card was truly worried about the sanctity of marriage he would start looking at all those Republicans who uphold the right to divorce? Maybe he would look a bit closer at all those people who translate it into a “right” for all heterosexuals to be married no matter what. No matter how many times. No matter how short the previous times?
But of course Card isn’t really interested in such. He wants attention. So he makes noise. And no doubt he is making noise in a situation where he feels safe enough that the choir is fully behind him while he “preaches”.
I say lets rise up. Let’s have that revolution. Let’s make sure marriage truly is treated with the sanctity it should be. Eliminate all divorce. Make every person who not only is married go through vigorous testing but every person who wants to stay married be tested as well. Psych evaluations etc. Make it truly hard to be married let alone divorced. And if you ever were divorced? Sorry. You have to go back to marriage one and really try to make it work under the same standards.
And since marriage is “holy” in Card’s eyes? Well the revolution will address that as well. No matter how viable, none of these johnny come lately relgions, thank you very much. After all, a unviersal aspect of holy needs to truly be universal doesn’t it. So it’s back to worshiping fire everyone. Only then can we truly have the revolution we deserve and one that will truly address the matter of protecting all things that should be sanctified. And the first dipwad that protests? Gets fed to our holy flame.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This whole issue is semantics! Those attempting to protect the “sanctity of marriage” are doing so in a religious light. They are picturing guys in dresses walking down a church aisle, and they are affronted. Meanwhile, the government’s true involvement in marriage is simply to have couples sign a bunch of paperwork and pay a fee so that they can have medical and tax rights. The government, unable to interfere with religious practice, can’t outlaw gay marriages in churches. All they can do is refuse simple services that are only allowed to spouses.
If the government were to completely stay out of marriage, or amend their terminology, then this issue would most likely evaporate. What if you could select a trusted friend to be the person who comes into the emergency room with you? Why should a married person get tax benefits over someone with a roommate (children factored in separately of course)?
If the government would take this step, then the only issue would be which religions, denominations, and churches wanted to marry gay couples.
Finally, why blow this issue out of proportion. Women were not allowed to vote or even hold land. Blacks were enslaved, then unable to vote, hold land, or enter certain establishments. Gay couples can do all of these things, so I wouldn’t quite put this issue on the same level.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I hadn’t heard about OSC’s homophobic nature until now. It, honestly, surprises me since the EG series was all about learning about and empathizing with differences…
Have to seek out what he said…
August 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
[...] 12, 2008 by jessiecarty here is an exception: Orson Scott Card. The link is to a much better rant than mine, but here I go [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
[...] document.write(”); Orson Scott Card blijkt conservatieve lul12-08-2008 om 20:22 door Grobbo Goede blogpost over ultra conservatieve mormoon gebleken Orson Scott Card (Enders Game) die pleit vo… Homo, homoseksualiteit, Huwelijk, Mormonen, Science Fiction, Waan v/d Dag, Weblogs Terug naar het [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Homophobic Glen says:
“Is it OK for me to be heterosexual? Am I not allowed to make that choice?”
Yes, it’s OK. You can choose not to act gay. But don’t worry about gay marriage, gay people can marry without turning you gay as much as straight marriage can make me straight.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Just because someone believes something and speaks out about they are evil. My opinion is if you are offended by OSC’s stance on gay marriage BE OFFENDED! You disagree with his stance and that makes him evil. screw you.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
wallobe, i totally forgot about that part! as stewie griffin says, “I love this god fellow. He’s so deliciously evil!”
ah well. thats why it’s dangerous to use the bible to support any argument. it’s so easy to be counter-pointed.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Well respected authors, even in sci fi (which I read) are not political figures. Is he trying to follow in the footsteps of Hubbard?? I like some of his writing, but what a loony!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“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.”
LMFAO you just planned my wedding, sir. all hail the People’s Republic of California!
now if we could just meet Utah halfway, i could marry 7 men!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Dude, I read Card’s article and I read yours, and you are the one who comes off sounding like a fool. You have a very narrow view of history and human society, and are so convinced you are right and those that disagree are morons. That just makes it seem like you don’t really think very much on your own.
Let me ask you this: do you support the right of people to have public sex outside of grade schools? If not, then what if that “right” becomes law in 100 years? You’ll end up retroactively being one of the KKK slaveowner nazis yourself.
Consider this simple premise: it’s possible for society to come to believe that a certain act, in the name of progress and expanded freedom, is okay, when in fact, it isn’t.
If you have ANY boundaries at all, then your disagreement is simply on where they are… most people don’t believe in 100% complete freedom. Certain things are forbidden because people believe they are immoral, not because they think it’s fun to tell people no.
I think you’re right that Card can’t possibly win the battle about gay marriage. However, I don’t think you’re right that everything leads to progress… the boy-loving ancient Greeks “freedom” went out of favor, so too may homosexuality again. And I wouldn’t be surprised if someday people value the lives of infants again, and then all the pro-choice people of today will be the KKK slaveowning nazis.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Orson Scott Card may have just overtaken John Edwards (The crossing over douchbag, not the wife cheating one) for biggest douche in the universe! Well done Swaim, well done.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Kitsonas
No. There is only one Raceism, and, like Metalbrainsurgery says, that is the belief that one race is superior to another. Opinions, religion, culture and so forth does not a race make. Rampant missuse of the word does not change the meaning.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“I am pretty sure there are a lot of homosexuals who find heterosexuality repulsive.”
Now THAT is perversion.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Holy comment Batman! I can’t read them all!
and @ DingDong:
Are you really that retarded? Alcoholism and gambling hurt people (mostly themselves, which is why they’re allowed to do it)
Everything else on that list hurts other people - how can you even compare gay marriage to murder, rape, or abuse? Name the one person who is hurt in ANY way by the marriage (I mean besides bigots who put there nose in places where it doesn’t belong, take offense at what they see and scream and yell until someone pays attention to them)
Please try to think a little before you post.
@ I look at windows - Who else were persecuted during the Holocaust by the Nazis…hmmm oh that’s right GAYS!
They were treated the same as the Jews, except that after the holocaust they were denied any of the reparations the other racial groups were given (granted giving people who have been oppressed their due repayment is something this country seems to have trouble with…)
Why would he have to worry about his children? Are they going to catch the gay if they hear about it? Are they suppose to live in ignorance of it? How does that help anything? America got to where it is now due to the vast ignorance of its population (well that and the population’s apathy…)
Once again, how does being gay hurt the child? You say it’s no different than asking someone to put out a cigarette so your kid doesn’t get cancer - I didn’t realize second-hand gay was such a problem. Could you give me a link to that study? I think it would be a VERY interesting read.
Sarcasm aside, what is your image of a world with gay marrige? Do you think that just because gays can get married they are all of a sudden going to be having random orgies in public? Are they all going to start wearing shirts saying “I’m gay! KISS ME!!”? That’s what it sounds like you think, or are you just afraid your kid might decide being gay is for him? Why would you try to protect your kid from two guys/girls in public than a guy and a girl? Isn’t that as dangerous (or even more so) to your kid? Might he/she see the guy/girl couple and decide to try that at a young age more so than the gay couple?
Basically its perfectly O.K. for you and your wife (if she even exists…) to be out in public because that fits in with your perception of the world, but if someone else wants to do their own (in NO WAY AFFECTING YOU) thing than its bad.
Maybe more of the world needs to be gay right now - many of our problems could be solved if the world’s population would stop growing so fast. The rest of them stem from people like you being unable to accept people for who they are - forcing them to give up their individuality for your vision of the world.
Now after that (extensive) rant, I just want to say this:
You’re entitled to your own opinion just like I am. You can say what you want about me or whoever you want. You can also do what you want to do (as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else) That is your right. MY right is to believe what I want to believe and do what I want to do (without harming or risk of harming other people)
Damn I feel better
August 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
To Austin:
>>I know I said I was going to bed, but I”m not done yet.
>>Basic Logic? Evidential Basis? My claim that we’re sliding is Self Evident. It’s the WHOLE reason we’re talking right now.
Incorrect.
I understand your claim as this: “We are allowing interracial marriage. We are allowing gay marriage. Therefore, we must allow pedophile marriage and zoophile marriage.”
Interracial and gay marriage are both the union of two individuals who are both capable of providing informed consent.
Pedophilia and Zoophilia are both the union of two individuals where one is incapable of providing informed consent.
We see that these four unions can be split into two mutually exclusive groups, one where both parties have informed consent (A), and one where one party has informed consent and the other is incapable of informed consent (B).
In order for A to imply B AND be self-evident, you would need to show that the union of two consenting individuals (A) necessitates and demands the union of a consenting individual and an individual unable to give consent (B). Furthermore, in order to show self-evidence, you mush show that this necessity of the second union (B) is directly caused by the first union (A).
Since a union between a consenting individual and an individual unable to give consent (B) has no bearing or logical weight on the union of two consenting individuals (A), we can conclude that (B) has nothing to do with (A). We can also clearly see that allowing the union of the group with consent (A) does not and can not cause the allowance of the union of the group without consent (B).
Hence, A does not imply B, and the statement is most assuredly not self-evident.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Good job supporting gays and getting cheap laughs using gay stereotypes at the same time. See “cognitive dissonance”. Good try, though.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Darkhorse wrote: “Dude - I don’t know what circles you move in, but a whole lot of folk out there, some of them out and out borderline commie liberals who hug trees and chain themselves to coal plant doors and donate to the NAACP and ACLU, don’t like the idea of gay marriage.”
Proving that there are homophobic bigots on the left, just as there are on the right. Your point?
Darkhorse wrote: “And no, gay marriage is nothing like classic civil rights struggle or Black slavery or the Holocaust.”
Yep. I don’t know too many black folks, or Jews, who were faced with a frontal lobotomy, or shock treatment, or “conversion therapy” or ostracism from their own family simply because they are black, or Jewish. And when the Nazi concentration camps were liberated… the Jews, Roma, etc were released — the gays were thrown back into prison.
Darkhorse wrote: “Know-nothing wanna be progressives like this Swain don’t even realize how offensive it is to compare a struggle of centuries that involved the countless and copious expenditure of tears, sweat, and blood, and, literally, lives,”
Because gays have never been beaten up, or killed, or nuttin’ like that, just because they’re gay, right?
Darkhorse wrote: ” w/ the a piece of that says two dudes who already the right to cohabit and buttfuck each other as much as they want, can now call themsselves husband and wife.”
Why would they do that? We call each other husband and husband (or wife and wife). Silly.
Darkhorse wrote: “It’s shocking how oh-so-suave-and-hip-and-urbane dipshits like that don’t realize how offensive and trivializing of a serious struggle it is to compare gay marriage w/ civil rights struggle and/or the universal fight for freedom from oppression since the time of Spartacus through the present.”
It’s shocking how myopic and short-sighted some oppressed folks can be toward the oppression faced by others.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I’ve skipped some of this so I could comment..but Getalife needs to get a life. And my “gay” spouse would have to be Angelina Jolie. She’s a hottie! And she can kick ass like a guy!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
besides my gay friends are a lot of fun
August 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
(sigh) there is so much drama here I stoped reading the comments about half way through. I’m mormon and I still think this guy is wrong. The bible is all about love and understanding everyonoe. I personaly don’t believe being gay is right but if some one else wants to do it it’s none of my buisness. Who am i to judge?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[...] I know, shocking. A little over the top? Layered too deeply for ya? OK. How about insidious instead? [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Well, heck, I like the guy.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Wow this took me at least 2 hours to read…. Did I learn anything? Nope but I am still very aware of how ignorant, opinionated, self righteous, humanity is. I am grateful that I am not as judgmental as all those censorious, self-righteous people around me. (*
*)
What is the fundamental bottom line for anyone or anything? What is it that everyone really and truly desires? To be loved. To be accepted. What if all judgments were suspended in space and time momentarily?
What would happen?
A mirror would appear. All anyone would see is their reflection. Bodies and shapes change, but one thing remains a true constant: the heart. Everyone has one, believe it or not. Soon that will be something we all realize. And that will bring a better space to the wold when that happens.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
@Kitsonas:
Racism- the belief that one race is superior to another.
Im sorry but you cant be a “Racist” based on political, religious or social backgrounds. You can be biggoted and prejudiced, but racist? No.
There is no gay race, or christian race, or liberal race ect. So to say that any form of prejudice is a form of racism, is just ignorant.
and its not semantics. Racism is a very different thing than being prejudiced.
“I belive that as a white man I am superior to all other races, especialy blacks and jews and therfore I have the right to controll their reproduction habits.”- Racism
“I don’t like black people.” - bigotry
“I don’t like black culture.” - prejudice
I don’t see being prejudiced in of itself being peticularly wrong. Only when it is mixed with biggotry or racism is when it becomes wrong.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I heart you. And I love m/m fiction so I’m sort of biased. As a (former) fan of OSC, I read about this some months back and pulled my membership from the fanclub. Ok the imaginary fan club, but still.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Good for him, down with gay marriage, and down with liberal queers.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
You know what I’ve always thought of as a good idea? Separating. I mean allow each state or province or whatever to decide whether they allow gay marriage or not. That way if someone complains about fags, they can move to a state that doesn’t allow any. And if a person feels oppressed by the straight folks, they can move to a state that where gays and straights alike can get along.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Don’t give me semantics, please.
There are different types of racism: racial, social, political, religious.
Prejudice against a person because of his social beliefs (writer that hate gays=shitty writer) is social racism.
Justifying your attacks against people who simply don’t like (not hurting!)
homosexuals by saying that homosexuals were (and are) repressed by society is reverse racism.
Being unable to have a different opinion without being stigmatized forever as homophobic is against the basics of gay people’s dogma: the right to differ. Try to accept the fact that there are people who find homosexuality unimaginable. I am pretty sure there are a lot of homosexuals who find heterosexuality repulsive.
Also,
i disagree with OSC but consider the fact that he is not 20 years old, he was born in 1956, he grew up in a completely different environment from ours. You think the average 50 year old guy is as open-minded us we are today? You think it’s your grandfather’s fault that he believes homosexuality is a sin? He is not an evil man, he is just out-dated.
last one,
who thinks Leni Riefenstahl’s movies are garbage because she was friends with Adolf Hitler?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
If 300 is anal, what does Swaim get for breaking 400?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Just some background for you from the Mormon perspective:
First off, referring to the 7th Son stuff, that pretty much describes the Mormon perspective. We are one of the few churches that do believe you are born that way and have those urges biologically. The thing is we are REALLY big on the family and the definition of marriage and that’s what bothers us here. we had 0 issues when California granted civil unions all the same rights as marriages, it’s when they say it’s the same thing as marriage that bothers us.
Also, just to point out, the seven deadly sins thing is something the catholics made up, so that doesn’t worry us. And lastly, the cherry picking scriptures argument doesn’t apply either because most all things in the old testament were overwritten by Christ’s new rules and new revelation, no one should follow those things. We do have new revelation telling us to protect the definition of marriage though, and there you have it.
I don’t expect you to think I’m right or anything, just wanted to give you some more perspective.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well then damnit, my civil rights as an individual with long hair are being infringed oppon because my school won’t allow me to keep it. I was born to have long hair, and there is nothing I can do to change it.
I demand that there be a law passed so that I can wear my long hair that I have no controll over in small baptist private schools because It is offencive that they should deny me that.
And yes it is a civil rights issue! There have been many men that have been beaten, and killed for having long hair. I get persacuted all the time. So fuck you short haird “normal” men, I am just like you. Only with long hair. That I cant controll, because I was born with a mental precondition to have long hair.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Umm when did this become Huffington Post junior? I come to crack for humor, to get away from politics crap that I find on some many sites, not more hate. If I wanted that I’d just go to digg.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
You should look up the definition to words like “bigot” and “nazi” before you go throwing them around so carelessly. The man doesn’t seem to have a problem with Jews or people of other color, women, etc. Only people who have to be gay. And he probably wouldn’t even have that much of a problem if gay people didn’t flaunt their blasphemic gayness everywhere. Seriously, legalizing gay marriage exposes the sad state that America is really in. Card is probably just worried about his children. How is he supposed to explain why two men are making out in public to his curious young children? All he’s asking is for gay people to stop being gay. How is that any different from asking the person next to you to put out their cigarette because you don’t want your child getting cancer? Being gay is unnatural and offensive, and considering all the things you’re NOT allowed to do in public, why does the government want to allow BEING GAY in public?
August 12th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Wow. What Wallobe says is just ironical and nonsensical simultaneously. Did I get 400??
August 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Darkhorse
You have no idea how offensive it is to claim that this is not a civil rights issue, and to completely write of the beatings, executions, jailings, ostracaitzions, castrations, lobotomations and otherwise overwhelming amount of hate and ill will homosexuals have had to endure, and in many parts of the world still endure, just because of their sexual oriantation. Just because it has remained a taboo longer, doesn’t mean that homosexuals have not been subject to the full force of ignorant human biggotry.
Saying that this it not a civil rights issue because they allready have the right to cohabit and so forth, is the same as saying that a black womans right to sit where she wants on the buss is not a civil rights issue, because she has the right to get on the bus.. I hope to the non existant god that you know which black woman I am talking about.. REPENT ignorant sinner. Thou shalt not take gods place, not even for spewing hate.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I totally agree! We should also establish legal rights for those who have a genetic disposition for alcoholism, pedophilia, and gambling! I mean, they were born that way, and we’re a progressive nation right?! People have a damn right to do whatever the hell they have natural tendencies to do. Take sociopaths and psychopaths for instance, we ought to legally allow them a set amount of murders too, because that’s just who they are, don’t they have rights? To hell with self control, I say that we begin the process of making sure that every person with any predisposition be legally permitted to live the way they were destined to live!
August 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Regarding Sodom & Gomorrah.
Lot tries to save the (male) angels from being sodomised (gangraped), by offering up his two virgin daughters to the crowd in stead (Genesis 19:5 - 19:8), like any good christian father would do.. right? Quite a man god chose to save there.. The daughters later thank him by getting him drunk in the mountains and having their twisted incestous way with him. They both get pregnant. Ah.. a book to live by if there ever was one.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“The Mormon’s I’ve known ”
You should get to know Captain HowToUseAnApostrophe.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Excellent comment, Darkhorse.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I don’t remember ever reading Orson Scott Card, but just based on Wikipedia I’m not sure why Swain is having a rag-fit over his anti gay marriage stance.
Dude - I don’t know what circles you move in, but a whole lot of folk out there, some of them out and out borderline commie liberals who hug trees and chain themselves to coal plant doors and donate to the NAACP and ACLU, don’t like the idea of gay marriage.
And no, gay marriage is nothing like classic civil rights struggle or Black slavery or the Holocaust. Know-nothing wanna be progressives like this Swain don’t even realize how offensive it is to compare a struggle of centuries that involved the countless and copious expenditure of tears, sweat, and blood, and, literally, lives, w/ the a piece of that says two dudes who already the right to cohabit and buttfuck each other as much as they want, can now call themsselves husband and wife.
It’s shocking how oh-so-suave-and-hip-and-urbane dipshits like that don’t realize how offensive and trivializing of a serious struggle it is to compare gay marriage w/ civil rights struggle and/or the universal fight for freedom from oppression since the time of Spartacus through the present.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
There’s a deep seeded fear in All homophobic people that if Homosexuality is okay, they will have to partake, whether they want to or not. Every single person who has ever rallied against their rights progressing has had a dream about doing another person of the same sex and it made them nervous either out of ignorance of, even more probable, curiosity. 100% of all homophobes do not hate gay people. They simply don’t want anyone else to know how they feel. So they say “lets squash the issue and bury it deep. Just say no and then don’t say another word ever again.” They mask their fears with hate. Tired old story. Unfortunately (or fortunately) a lot of it is generational and a good chunk of these people will be dead soon so the amount of people screaming to “stop the gheys” will go down, but too many younger people are being mis-educated (I know that’s not a word, bite me). Lets just hope we can plug our ears and go “lalalalalalala” untill we’re dead.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
WRITERS = CRAZY PEOPLE
Of all the people on Earth, I would hope the patrons of this site would be aware of this fact.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Right off the bat: I am a Christian (united baptist from West Virginia, to be precise), and I am straight.
I was outside sweeping the porch today and thinking about this cracked article for some strange reason.
Although my religion and church’s stance on homosexuality is pretty well known, it’s something I’ve been thinking about off and on for a while now. And Michael, your comment about how we use one little passage of the Old Testament (which, technically, Christians aren’t supposed to even follow; it’s history and prophesy, not part of the “doctrine”) to so vehemently justify something as an “abomination” is quite silly when you think about it.
I know for a fact that many of the old mosaic laws were put in place for health reasons. For example, pork was forbidden because the israelites had no way of properly cleaning it. Now, sex of any kind is pretty dirty, but since straight sex can lead to procreation, i guess you could call it a necessary evil or something.
Another favorite “anti-homo” passage in the bible is the story of Sodom & Gomorrah (sp?), where Lot saved the two angels from unwanted butt thumping at the hands of an angry mob. However, on closer inspection, this would technically be rape. Is the bible saying that had they been chick angels, it would have been ok? I don’t think so.
Bottom line: christians strive to be christ-like, and to beleive that he died for our sins, etc. If a person believes that, and lives their life trying their best to follow his example, can any of us other christians judge them solely on their preference on whom they choose to love?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Awesome! Well done.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Apparently, based on my reading of Mr. Swain’s little rant and some of the comments on here (I have by no means read all), nobody besides myself has actually read Mr. Card’s article. He makes no mention of revolution or bloody coup, just for a start. He does express opinions with which I disagree vehemently, and I find his logical support for them flawed, but Mr. Swain and all of the comments I’ve read are far more illogical and rabid that Card’s article.
I’d recommend to everyone on here to actually READ what Mr. Card wrote, at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040308homo.html
Unless, of course you find mudslinging more entertaining than reasoned thought and discussion.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
wieners in butts
August 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am
[...] believe that Michael Swaim has said it best. What would Jesus do? If you can answer that question with anything other than “shower the world [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“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?”
This is the fundamental problem with fundamentalism today. How can a huge group of people completely ignore a chunk of scripture that takes up the majority of text and then delude themselves into thinking they’re the ones who have a corner on the market of morality?
I’ve somehow missed the passage where God made the Mormons (or the Protestants or the Catholics) the judge, jury and executioner for Good, Clean Christian Livin’. Until you can embrace ALL of what Christ taught (”take the plank out of your own eye,” in other words) then sit down and STFU. Please. You’re making the rest of us look bad.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Why is it that there’s higher, per capita, speach impediments in the gay community? Does slobbing knobs create some kind of tongue malfunction and if so, why don’t all women speak with a lisp?
Things that make you go hmmmmm. Or hummana hummana hummana.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Kitsonas, I think the people saying we should burn his books are being a bit facetious and purposely over reacting. Of course it’s stupid to actually burn his books, but if you don’t want to read his stuff anymore b/c you think he’s an idiot, then who cares? Authors generally put alot of themselves and their personality into their work, much like an actor or singer, so if you find out that the author has views that are totally against what you believe in, then it’s not unreasonable for that to completely change the tone of the work for you. Or not. Everyone makes their own determination, there’s really no right or wrong there.
And again, pro-homosexual people aren’t actually asking religious people to hop on-board the gay train - they just want them to get out of their way. If you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin, then that’s your right, and it’s not a problem unless you deny another their right to disagree and live their life.
“Reverse Racism” - ahhhh, the lament of those in charge who lose a tiny little bit of their power! You can start talking about reverse racism when straight people are denied the right to get married and our beaten or ostracized because they enjoy man on woman love. In the meantime, it’s a stupid argument.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Getalife, I strongly feel that anyone who has devoted his entire life to one book, believes in an invisible man who created the world, and uses these beliefs to pass harsh, oppressive judgment on people who simply because they are romantically and sexually interested in their own gender… well, I feel that person is a far, far bigger moron than someone who uses his writing skills to be humorous and yet still be relevant to what’s going on in the world
August 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Nice article, but even better is the handful of postings from the few illiterate who tried to parse the article and failed.
I don’t think this’ll stop me from reading Speaker for the Dead, any more than Maurice Bessenger being a racist will stop me from eating his delicious BBQ sauce. If their products have merit, I’ll endorse them. If their ideologies don’t, I’ll flip em the bird.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Kitsonas
Ehh… I don’t think “reverse racisim” enters in to this. It is hardly a RACEial matter is it? RACEism is when you dislike, fear and have a set of false, ill informed, fabricated and mostely hatefull “facts” and opinions about a differant r a c e.. As in “I hate caucasians because they want to marry our grandmothers, and sell themselves for sex and want nothing more than to molest my rabbits, evil unwashed folk they are”.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:49 am
(Were you ever committed to a mental institution because you “think you’re black”? Sent to a re-education program to make your skin white? Do people complain that you CHOSE to be black, that you could be white if you really wanted to, and just completely disbelieve you when you say otherwise? Do people assume you are white unless you tell them otherwise, but complain about you being “too public about this private matter” if you do? Do books that simply depict black families get banned from libraries because racists would rather not have to explain the existence of black people to their children? The physical invisibility of same-sex orientation is a mixed blessing, Jam.)
We do not share the exact same history, of course. We’re two different groups with different characteristics and different histories. What’s the point in saying “Slavery was worse than the holocaust, and the holocaust was worse than women’s lack of rights, and women’s lack of rights was worse than the oppression of gays”? We’re not in a competition here. The parallels between our various struggles DO exist, and they ARE instructive, despite our differences.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Obviously homophobes are noobs, I am not defending him in anyway. But not reading good books because the authors have some stupid quirk is just silly. His books are GOOD, some of the best I have ever read.
Fine, don’t buy them and support him… I can respect that. I don’t buy books anyway 99% of the time, I use the library. But not reading them is reactionary noobness.
A lot of people won’t read Rand because of her political beliefs. It’s the same thing, denying yourself some of the best literature of our time because you disagree about something that has nothing to do with the literature. Once the book is written, its ours, not his or hers.
That’s like not letting Favre on your football team because you think he puts too much pepper in his stew.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am
i love you.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Isn’t weird that none of the annoying questions asked in the comments don’t get an answer?
Where is the brilliant wit when someone asks: “Trashing a writer’s work because of his beliefs, and prompting others to burn his books, isn’t a little bit extreme?” Or why is it that anyone who doesn’t openly and with no doubt declare that gay marriage is a wonderful thing and all Gods are gay is considered a Christie, a zealot, a bigot, a hypocrite , a fascist?
“You are with us or against us, you can’t just say that you don’t care: say you love gay people or else you are a homophobic bigot! Say it loud! You heterosexual freak…
Haven’t you heard of the term Reverse Racism?
August 12th, 2008 at 9:34 am
KILL ALL FAGGOTS
August 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Go you! I too was a OS Card fan until he made his horrible opinion known. I too was looking forward to the always-a-few-years-away Ender’s Game movie. I hope Hollywood, if they WERE entertaining any such ideas, drops him like a hot rock now.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Organized religion is a political party/big business. It has nothing to do with being spiritual and looking for God, meaning, etc. Look how involved they are in politics, the present Bush administration is run by Pat Robertson lawyers, Pat Robertson ran for president, it’s political and big business. That does not mean the people in it don’t believe in God but organized religion is not about love, God, peace and finding one’s self. The reason for this constant strum about gay’s is it’s political, money raising fodder for the power churches. I can assure you when it loses it’s ability to bring in the votes, money, power it will be dropped and a new issue will replace it. Your sexual preferences is not any of the goverment’s, church’s, states, or your next door neighbors business. If a church does not want to marry someone that is their choice but when they try and make rules to shove their beliefs on you when you are not a christian, or have completely different beliefs that is WRONG WRONG WRONG and call it what it is: power grabbing bullying politics.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Wow. The author sells himself short when he humbly pleads that logic is “all I’ve got so here I go.” In additon to logic, he also has an unending supply of ad hominum attacks that render the use of his much vaunted logic unnecessary (”Mr. Card, you are as evil, and will one day be as reviled by any sane individual, as an 18th-century slave owner.”)
I find it particularly unfortunate that his first stab at a logical argument (”Throughout the history of America…the universal historical trend…has been towards expanding rights for an expanding number of people.”) seems to be an anachronistic piece of historical determinism that would make Hegel or Marx proud. Yet it fails to even recognize the objections which proved fatal to their more substantial arguments.
And, for the record, I fully support the right of gays to marry. But if you are looking for a good argument for that position, better to read “Gay Marriage” by Jonathan Rauch than anything by Michael Swaim.
As an aside, Is it just just me or are Cracked authors increasing grandstanding on issues that most people born after 1950 agree on anyway? “Homophobia?! BOO!” “Racism?! Hiss!” I wonder what easy target that will use their formidable logic on next?
August 12th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Getalife:
(and all biblefreaks)
First:
God loves a good genocide, but he likes 7 better:
Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT:
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don’t let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. ”
And more:
I Samuel 6:19
“And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.”
And against his own:
Numbers 25:3-4
“And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.’”
Still not satisfied, and incuraging rape to boot:
Numbers 31:16-18
“Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
I Could go on and on.. Check for instance http://www.evilbible.com/ for more verses.
The bible is far from a source for goodness if you chose to pay heed to the old testament, genocides, summary executions, rape and horrible punishments on inocents is commonplace, justefied, ordered, and executed by god him self or by porxy. Read it and see for yourself.
Also Getalife, regarding your whole twisted “pedofiles marrying their own daughters” rant. Let me explain the difference, since you obviously have a problem rational thought. “Consenting adults” is a term you may have seen thrown about. What that term means is that gay couples consist of two sane adults capable of making informed decisions. These two people have love each other, and make mutual decisions to be together and do origami, or whatever gay people do, the point is. They know what they are doing, and they harm no one. A pedofile on the other hand.. well, either you see where this is going, or there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
When pertaining to marriage between marriage between for instance brother and sister, they might well be consenting adults, but any offspring they might produce would run a very high risk of being deformed or in other ways genetically defective. That most certainly constitutes a good reason to ban it, no matter how pissed the banjo crowd gets. See.. there is a difference.. “cause no undue harm to others”.
Regarding the “liberal news media” and their (lack of) coverage of gay parent abuse. First off, in relation to how common it is, there is close to no coverage of “straight” parent abuse either, exept in extreme cases. Second calling the media in the US Liberal is utter and complete bullshit. I know the term is common, but that doesn’t change the fact that media like for instance CNN is remarkably conservative and right wing compared to the media in europe. Amsterdam, that is liberal.. American media is much closer to a republican day dream, even if they are so ridiculously conservative that they don’t see it themselves. The Democrats are far, so far, to the right of ANY goverment in western europe, so if you have an issue with liberals (which here means something like “tolerant” and is mostly used as a compliment) you really should stay stateside.
Moreover.. I don’t think anyone comes here to “form their opinions”, but usually to laugh. However when someone here feels the need to say something real, and you happen to aggree with what he is saying, that is also nice. As you may have noticed, the overwhelming majority here totally loves the idea of gay marriage, and spend much of their days dreaming of what it would be like. So.. here, in this comments section, democracy has voted you down.
As for your arguments that “gay marriage has never been allowed” well, as Mr. Swaim says, blacks used to be regarded at beasts of burden, and half the population couldn’t vote. It was like that for a looong time.. Does that mean that it in any way was right?
Yes, democracy is majority rule, and the majority should be listened too. (Exept of cource, if the majority decides that jews and/or gypsies and/or slavic people and/or black people and/or mentally challenged people and/or physically challenged people and/or those with different political views and or people with a different culture or religion and/or people with certain diseases and or poor people and/or anyone that is different than the majority should can rigtfully be punished or discriminated on basis on their harmless differentness). In that case, people who are not moronic, xenofobic, ill informed haters should act against the majority, as I believe is the case here. All it takes for intolerance and arcaic pontless “putting my self in gods place” rhetoric and law to prevail is for good men to do nothing and so forth.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Ok Jam, black people had it way worse than gay people have it now, you win the “Most Oppressed Ever” award.
(By the way, did you have to “come out” as black to your parents? Did your dad kick your ass and your mom cry when they found out? How about cutting you off from your family, friends, and church that you grew up in - did that happen? Do major religions call you an abomination and suggest stoning you to death because you’re black?
I’m still not saying we have it worse, I’m just saying it’s different - yeah, we have the option of passing and pretending and that’s not open to you. Sorry. But there are other differences which don’t work out so nicely for gay people.)
August 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Artificial,
“Average” or “typical” is not the same thing as “normal”. The average person may be heterosexual, the typical marriage might be heterosexual. But a person can be gay and still be “normal”, just like a left-handed person can be normal without conforming to the majority’s handed-ness.
No one is saying that everyone is gay, or that the majority of people are gay, or that you should be gay, or that having gay sex makes babies. What we’re saying is that there is and has always been a small subset of people who have a natural orientation towards their own sex, and that they are perfectly able to live normal lives with that really quite negligible variation, and that they ought to be free to create legal families in the exact same manner that opposite-sex-oriented people are.
Marriage isn’t biological, procreation is. You’d be right to say that I can’t spontaneously reproduce with my partner, but if you think that procreation and marriage are actually hard-linked in reality - either physically or legally - you need to look around more.
As for Tila Tequila, I’m not sure what that lamentable mess has to do with me. I’m no more saying that it’s ok to be a drunken slut when I call for marriage equality than I’m saying it’s ok to be a mailbomber when I say you should have the freedom to live in a shack in the woods if you like.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I didn’t actually see any quotes from OSC at all in the thread. In the future could you at least have a shred of journalistic competance and perhaps include his actual thoughts, and not try to paraphrase them into your sad attempt at humor or whatever you were going for.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am
If the definition of marriage changes, I think my wife would be really upset if I asked for an annulment based on the argument “That’s not what I signed up for.”
I might be straight. Gay marriage or changing the law wouldn’t effect (affect?) my status, but it damn sure would change how I felt about what I signed up for.
I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her. Not because she was a woman. Okay, that came out poorly.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I am not given to comment on dumb articles usually but c’mon, “Unless I’m sorely mistaken, God’s got no problem with it.”, dont even claim to know the mind of god if you dont even attempt to read or understand the bible.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV).
That scripture plainly says that god has a pretty big problem with it, but he has the same problem with all who(feel free to raise hands) drink to get drunk, think lustfully about someone else’s wife, or had sex (with same or opposite sex) outside of marriage. When people get up on their high horse about religion they usually only pick out what points at others never at themselves.
And while I am at it…I dont care what homosexuals do, but dont compare their problems with racial problems, I went to school with a gay guy and when I was set on fire for going to the movies with a white girl, I couldnt sit there and claim “Hey, Im white just like you”, Homosexuals have way more options then other oppressed groups, so lose that analogy.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Getalife,
I take it you aren’t a lawyer. Nor do you have a very good grasp on what “liberty” means, really.
Marriage = fundamental right. (This is well established jurisprudence in California.)
In California, the judges saw no reason that the history of male-femaleness MUST be innate to the definition of that fundamental right. (History can be a guide, but doesn’t have to be.)
On the other hand, they saw plenty of reason why that particular historical scope-limitation of that fundamental right SHOULD be thrown out. (The recent move to civil unions that are, state-wise at least, identical to marriage.)
They go on to state what they interpret the right to marry as being: the right of consenting adults to bind themselves together as a legal family. There is nothing in the California constitution which requires them to interpret it differently, and plenty of stuff in the California constitution and history which suggests that it really ought to be interpreted this way.
I understand that you disagree that the fundamental right to marry should be so broadly defined, but there’s no good California constitutional argument for such a stance. Since, then, the recognized fundamental right of consenting adults (not consenting opposite sex adults, just consenting adults) to marry was restricted for gay people, that’s a pretty obvious interference with their liberty.
Not only is marriage equality the right thing to do, it’s also the constitutional thing to do. This is what we call a win-win.
In our free society, I should not have the option to use laws restricting others’ free and harm-free actions to shape society into whatever form I believe would simply make it easier to raise my children the way I like.
You do not get to define your abstract discomfort and displeasure with my actions, or the mere fact that my actions require a certain amount of bare acknowledgment, as “harm” and then declare that I am causing you harm by existing and by exercising my freedoms.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Wow, and I thought “Xenocide” (and everything after) was bad enough. If you’ll excuse me, I have some trimming to do from my SF literature collection, along with a message to Card’s website…something along the lines of how the jackass author stands for everything that I don’t.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:49 am
PS the bible is a myth.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
What is really sad is all the fags and uneducatd people posting rants like this. Mr. Card was simply stating facts like how the state of man and woman in marriage is biologically normal. If you stupid people can’t see that it is NORMAL for a man to be fucking a woman then you are really as blind as the people you claim to hate(gaybashers). It’s funny how gays act like it’s a right to let them marry each other and personally I’m not against a legal contract for gays. To call it marriage and to make it out to be like a biologically correct marriage is WRONG. The purpose of marriage is and always will be to procreate. To use it for anything else makes marriage as meaningless as it already has become with divorce and abandoment running rampant in our country. I wouldn’t say that it really has to do with anything moral to me. To me it has to do with biology. I’m a heterosexual man and for people to look upon being gay as normal is pretty fucked up. Since when did everyone start thinking being gay was normal? With MTV and all the stupid reality shows that are on it’s no wonder that people are just as stupid and uneducated as the people they get to play on these shows. Tila Tequila is just one example of what you guys are defending. I guess it’s ok to be a drunk whore that fucks everything of any sex because that is NORMAL now. I’m really thinking that America is losing touch with basic ideals of good and bad. Not that being gay is bad mind you; but the celedration of stupidity, avarice, greed and ignorace is making us a pile of dumbshits. Being gay isn’t the norm of the human condition. If it was I’d be in a dress and high heels. I think most people have to remember that.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Orson Scott Card’s Mormon ideals have always soaked through the Ender series. His books are still amazing, even if he’s ridiculously fundamentalist.
What about Petra, and the way her defining characteristic is that she wants to have as many babies as possible before Bean dies? And really, how that’s one of the most prevalent themes of the last two books about Ender on that colony planet.
I disagree with Card, and I feel sorry for him as I pity everyone who’s been conditioned in such a way. But I still display his books on my shelf. I think that’s okay.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
This Sentence does not work
“Orson Scott Card is a fascist whose books should be burned.”
Get it
Fantastic still marrying his sister and that other dudes illegitimate children
August 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“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.” Best. Rant. Ever.
Religion poisons everything. Just more proof to add to the endless mountains of it.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:39 am
WTF? A well thought out argument that uses logic and rational thought to eloquently defend the rights of minority while exposing the subject of the piece as a hypocritical, bigoted religious zealot? THIS IS NOT WHAT I COME TO CRACKED TO READ, SWAIM! MOAR DICK JOKES!!!!!!111one
August 12th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Also, what’s so “tolerant” about all these disgruntled ex-Card fans on here condoning boycotts and book burnings? Did you do the same when it was the Dixie Chicks mouthing the unpopular comments a few years ago and the uber-patriotic types destroying their CD’s?
Or is this just another example in the long line of liberal “do as I say, not as I do”?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I just got back from a walk down the street after reading this article. I am a huge SF fan and always a huge Card fan, after reading this I packed up all my Card books (not many, just 5) in a plastic shopping bag and walked down the street until I found a homeless guy asking for change. I gave him the bag and told him he could read them, burn them for warmth or sell them to a used book store so he could go get high. Part of me hopes he destroys them.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Yes, OSC’s notions on homosexuals are a little…out there (just like many other Mormon’s), but that doesn’t make him a lousy writer. Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead are just as good now as they were in the 80’s, and OSC will have his place in the pantheon of legendary sci-fi writers nomatter what his opinions on social/political issues (opinions which are largely irrelevant to his talent or ability as a writer).
Great writers cannot be denied their due credit simply because of nutty political/personal opinions. Arthur Miller was a commie nutjob. Stephen King is as lefty as they get. Doesn’t mean they’re not good writers.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Progress is an illusion. Society has conferred more external rights onto us, but we aren’t any happier, and the signs of the decline are everywhere.
What, exactly, would gay marriage do for us as a society besides:
(a) make us feel all smug and happy that we “empowered” people
(b) give a few gays the tax breaks normally given to the married
Nothing. It’s all a big show to keep the proles distracted, and the author of this piece is helping because he seems to have the attention span of a gnat.
What good has “progress” actually done, other than feed your ego?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I agree with many of the comments that religion should play no part in government, but I also understand that marriage is in fact a religious ceremony. What I don’t get is why homosexuals aren’t permitted to have civil unions…to be recognized as a couple by the government just like all of the heterosexual couples. Although it still sucks for the population of devote homosexuals who would love the opportunity to have a “traditional” church wedding. The world is unfair, someone will always be at the short end of the stick…(haha that could be made into a bad gay joke) anyhoo I really just wanted to say that that was one hell of an impressive rant. I commend you on that sir. Thanks for entertaining me for a bit.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I’m not supporting Orson’s views, but I read his stuff and I wouldn’t call him a bigot. I would say he has strong religious beliefs that he zealously supports. He does not hate or promote violence against gay people. He simply believes that gay marriage is wrong, which is his PERSONAL belief that he is entitled to have.
Frankly, I am more offended by your inflammatory rant painting Orson as a bigot. Using your logic, a person that disagrees with George Bush would be a terrorist, or a Catholic that doesn’t believe in abortion is sexist. A person having strong personal beliefs does not make them a bad person simply because those views aren’t the same as your own.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Whatever, I still like Ender’s Game.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:48 am
As a devout Mormon I understand why Card has his issue with Gay Marriage, but the Mormon church hasn’t denied that homosexual attraction is not usually voluntary, unlike many Christian groups.
Oh, and please don’ assume that all Mormons are right wing zealots who are “impervious to logic”. Thats showing a similar insensitivity that you accuse Card of (though admittedly not on the same scale, your not advocating a coup).
August 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Would you fags shut the fuck up down there, you kept me up all night. Shit!
August 12th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I think gay marriage proponents are kind of missing the point. If you allow gay marriage to be legal, that means you’re going to have to allow gay divorce as well. Frankly, I’ve seen enough blood and horror stories play out in the straight divorces I know. I shudder to think what a gay divorce would be like.
But all (sort of) kidding aside, the big argument that gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage is hogwash. What’s weakening that is how easy it is to get a divorce. And if anybody wants to wave a bible in my face happens to have a divorce under your belt, well, sorry friend, you’re part of the problem. Oh, and barring certain instances where Scripture says it is okay to divorce, I’m afraid YOU are the one going to Hell.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am
The Gay Menace is a real pain in the arse. We should rise up as needed.
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
August 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Jorn wrote: “In this case I would regard Orson Scott Card in the same way I do L. Ron Hubbard- I don’t give a damn about the political or religious views they put forth from their personal lives, they’ve still written some damn good literature. I don’t care about Scientology, but Battlefield Earth was an awesome novel.”
I beg to differ. Battlefield Earth was rubbish.
Jorn wrote: “Likewise, the entire Ender series is f’ing awesome, and doesn’t become any less so in light of what the author has said twenty years later.”
Try reading this:
Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman
“Let me tell you about a book I just read.
It’s the story of a young boy who was dreadfully abused by the grown-ups who wanted to mold him into an exemplary citizen. Forced to suppress his own emotions in order to avoid being paralyzed by trauma, he directed his energy into duty rather than sex or love. In time, he came to believe that his primary duty was to wipe out a species of gifted but incomprehensible aliens who had devastated his kind in a previous war. He found the idea of exterminating an entire race distasteful, of course. But since he believed it was required to save the people he defined as human, he put the entire weight of his formidable energy behind the effort to wipe out the aliens.
You’ve read it, you say? It’s Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, right?
Wrong. The aliens I’m talking about were the European Jews, blamed by many Germans for gearing up World War I for their own profit. The book is Robert G. L. Waite’s The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hilter.
I don’t know of any pair of novels that have been as consistently misinterpreted as Card’s Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge of twentieth century history might be expected to guess that the character of Ender Wiggin, the near messianic superhero, is based on that of Adolf Hitler. Card himself is the “Speaker for the Dead” who seeks to understand and forgive the genocidal dictator’s behavior by demonstrating that his intentions were good. Because Hitler/Ender committed genocide to preserve the existence and dignity of what he defined as human, he is not a monster but a true Superman who willingly shouldered the heavy responsibility thrust upon him.”
More at: http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html
August 12th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Right on…You can be a great writer yet still have your fears and insecurities get the best of ya. Ah well, I’ll just try to enjoy the books for what they are, and realize that the author is just living in the age he grew up in. (The 50’s? 60’s?) Remember even though it’s 2008, older people are a product of the backwards world from where they came from. We will most likely be products of the late 90’s early 21’st century in 2040-50. By then people will probably be married to their robots or lightsabers. The Future will be so cool!
August 12th, 2008 at 7:03 am
A couple of friends of mine pointed out:
quote: I like Card’s internal consistency. First saying:
“The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America. These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.”
But then:
“there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.”
* * * * *
My other friend said:
quote: “I love the part where Card says:
“… I have been called a “homophobe” for years. This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way….”
But then Card goes on to advocate violence against those supporting homosexuals … and if you advocate violence against those who support homosexuals, just what are you capable of doing to actual homosexuals? His definition of homophobe is wrong, but even using his definition, he still clearly fits the description to a tee.”
* * * * *
I couldn’t agree more with my friends’ observations.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
oh well.I still like a sepulchre of songs
August 12th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Even though I suspect this will be taken in the opposite direction than where I intend, I feel the need to say it-
In this case I would regard Orson Scott Card in the same way I do L. Ron Hubbard- I don’t give a damn about the political or religious views they put forth from their personal lives, they’ve still written some damn good literature. I don’t care about Scientology, but Battlefield Earth was an awesome novel. Likewise, the entire Ender series is f’ing awesome, and doesn’t become any less so in light of what the author has said twenty years later.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:56 am
You are sorely mistaken; God has a clear-cut problem with it.
Sodom & Gomorrah we’re urban renewal projects.
Pretending otherwise just marks you for a fool and a liar.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Getalife wrote: “What’s next? If the states cannot define marriage for themselves, then I guess anyone wanting to marry their own 10 year old daughter/son must be allowed to do so. That may sound ridiculous, but think about it. If gays are going going to say the state cannot restrict them from being married, then hell, the pedophile parents of these kids can claim the same exact argument. Logic be damned!”
Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. Because in every other case — Spain, Canada, Holland, South Africa, Sweden — pedophiles are now marrying children, grown men are marrying barnyard animals, polygamy is rampant, cats are having sex with dogs, the seas are running with blood, the moon has gone dark…
What an asshat you are.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Hmm,
I would’ve thought anyone capable of writing books with the complex moral reasoning behind eg “Speaker of the Dead” would be above this.
I’ll never be able to read a book by Mr Orson-Scott Card again with the same level off enjoyment.
Sad.
A disappointed European.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Card wants to stop the Gay Menace (Now in stereo!) because he knows the secret that beats at the heart of every homophobe and intolerant tool.
In a straight fight between homo and hetero, those gays would open up so many cans of whoop-ass they’ll have to open up some more can-of-whoop-ass-factories.
The Forces of Sodomy (my favourite description of gays by silly haters) will have nicer uniforms, would fight dirty, and would win over straight women by being their best friends.
Befriend the homosexuals, fellow heteros, for their power knows no bounds.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:29 am
For anyone quoting the 14th Amendment in reference to this gay marriage topic, you are wrong. The 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gay marriage, or heterosexual marriage for that matter, is not an issue of being denied “life, liberty, or property”, therefore the 14th has NOTHING to do with queers marrying queers. What’s next? If the states cannot define marriage for themselves, then I guess anyone wanting to marry their own 10 year old daughter/son must be allowed to do so. That may sound ridiculous, but think about it. If gays are going going to say the state cannot restrict them from being married, then hell, the pedophile parents of these kids can claim the same exact argument. Logic be damned! And don’t give me the “there are already laws against that sort of thing” argument either since that is essentially what the liberal media, fringe gay/lesbian groups, and the so-called ‘progressive’s’ in our society are trying to do with gay marriage. They’re trying to over throw existing laws which prevent the practice of gay marriage.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Austin wrote: “I agree with O.S. Card that the traditional family of Husband, Wife, and Children has been taken for granted and abused to the point of it almost being abandoned. I can’t off the top of my head think of a single society that has done this that I would want to follow after. It’s my understanding they don’t last long, though I’m no scholar on the subject.
Ahhhmmmm…. try Sweden. Or Spain. Or Canada. Or South Africa. Or Holland. We all allow gays to marry, and it hasn’t brought about the “abandonment” of male/female marriage, despite what Blowhard Limbaugh, James Dobson or the rest of those repugnant assholes might insist. The REAL threat to male/female marriage is all you straights who have been making a mess of it for all these years — hey, it wasn’t us queers who caused a divorce rate of almost 50%, was it?
Phil wrote: “Look, I really don’t think that the government should redefine marriage, as a matter of fact I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. [...] In my opinion the Government should ONLY do civil unions and Churches should ONLY do marriages.
What about cases where churches (ie: Unitarian Universalists, United Church of God, some Quaker sects, etc.) WANT to be able to marry gay folks? Shouldn’t THEY have the Freedom of Religion™ to do so, or should the asshat bigots be allowed to continue with the fiction that they speak for ALL religious folks? (Oh, and good luck getting your proposed “civil unions” recognized internationally anywhere *outside* the United States — under international law, Civil Unions =/= Marriage, it’s as simple as that.)
Davoyeahdude wrote: “The thing is, marriage is considered to be a religious insitution.”
Actually, the institution of marriage *predates* the creation of ANY of the currently active religious superstitions/myths, even if you are a follower of Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin. You *might* have a point (maybe) if you are arguing from a pagan perspective, but I sense that’s not what you mean. In fact, marriage as a legal/societal institution existed LONG before it was hijacked by all the gawd-botherers. Oh, and as for your points about “civil unions”, see my points to Phil, above. But if YOU want to get one… be my guest.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Butts.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:21 am
lol
August 12th, 2008 at 5:20 am
davoyeahdude -
Question. In your “Civil Union” scenario, would those who are heterosexual but not religious be allowed one too? What about religious gays? Would everyone be required to get a “Civil Union” license and have a “Marriage Ceremony” for the religious part?
Thing is the 14th amendment states that what goes for one group has to be the same for another (ok that’s very simplified). So as you can’t deny an interracial couple from marrying (Loving vs. Virginia) it should also, by US laws, be illegal to deny gay couples from marrying.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Andy Says:
It has everything to do with the country, city, and community you live in–all of those relate to you. He doesn’t want his children to live in a society where it’s “ok to be gay”.
Frankly, I don’t want my children to live in a society where it’s ok to be an eskimo.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:12 am
I’m actually a little surprised that protestants claim that marriage is a religious institution. Martin Luther, you know that guy who started the protestant reformation…the one who split from the only other Christian church, very clearly stated in his writings that marriage is a civil institution. God and the church, any church, has nothing to do with marriage.
Granted, he wrote a lot of insane things, but being that he founded the basis of quite a few churches today, some of his stuff has to mean something to people.
LOL. Are we picking out our gay spouses now? I call Gabrielle Union!
August 12th, 2008 at 5:04 am
skkflip Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The best things about mormons are the girls are super hot.
I disagree. The best thing about Mormons is BYU’s football team.
Gooooooooooo Cougars!
August 12th, 2008 at 5:00 am
By the way, there WILL be a day when gays force us all to become homosexual, and MARK MY WORDS, when that day comes, I sure hope Lou Diamond Phillips is still single.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Am I the only one who thinks the most offensive thing written here was Chairman Poo mistakenly referring to the 1992 film classic “Three Ninjas” as “Three Little Ninjas?”
Tum Tum must be rolling over in his grave.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:28 am
@ davoyeahdude:
Your comment proves your absolute inability to have an intelligent discussion as you assume that ALL abused children are being abused by hetero parents, and that no adopted child of a homosexual couple has ever been abused. I work with abused and neglected children every day and you’d be surprised to hear that based on the percentages, Gay “parent’s” are slightly more likely to abuse than straight parents are. Of course, there are exponentially higher numbers of children in hetero homes, so the overall #’s are much higher. Also, the liberal news media rarely if ever reports on Gay “parent” abuse since it would be counter productive to the agenda which they are shoving down the throats of the American public.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Ok, so first off, the Bible clearly, pointedly states that homosexuality is a sin. (Lev. 18:22- unless by some stretch some of you can convince yourselves that the word “abomination” is somehow a positive commentary; Romans 1:27, 32) Secondly, whoever made the argument that the Catholic church at one time permitted gay marriage implies that the Catholics are THE standard bearer for all Christian’s, when in fact most Protestant faith’s disagree greatly with the Pope on what the true meaning of Christianity is. Third, the United States of America is a representative democracy, meaning that whoever the MAJORITY elects to make laws, etc; get to MAKE THE LAWS!!! What a novel concept, kinda lends itself to MAJORITY rule, and for the entire 232 year history of our great nation, that majority has believed marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Thus, the overwhelming majority of states do not allow this practice. However, with that being said, marriage is a STATE’S RIGHT issue; as the Constitution does not give that power to the Federal government. So, if MA, HI, CA, etc. decide by vote of either the legislature or the populace that they wish to extend marriage rights to gays, then so-be-it. I am however allowed, by the Constitution, to say that it is wrong, sinful, disgusting, etc. The real problem is that the Judicial branch of the CA govt. has trumped not only the Legislative and Executive branches, but also the direct will of the people since the Gay Marriange referendum was defeated handily at the ballot box. The true solution to this issue is for the vast majority of states who have deemed gay marriage illegal to pass new laws stating that they will not recognize gay marriages which are legal in a very few states. That is not bigoted, discriminatory, etc, as the gays who get married can happily live in the states where they are afforded the full benefits of marriage (again, Representative Democracy so why should the states where the MAJORITY are against this practice have it forced down our throats?).
Lastly, anyone who reads the idiot who writes this blog for a site which calls itself a “humor and video site” in order to form his or her opinion(s) on any legitimate or serious topic is obviously a total and absolute friggin’ MORON who I pray daily will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER exercise thier right to vote!
August 12th, 2008 at 4:20 am
I am sad that the man that wrote Ender’s Game can be such a thorough going schmuck. Just goes to show that stupid people can occasionally be good at something. i am a pretty devout Christian myself and find it troubling how many of my fellow believers would rather take up arms than to actually be CHRISTIAN. It sickens me that Mr Card thinks this way but luckily fro me i dont really think that genius in one area denotes intelligence in all
August 12th, 2008 at 4:17 am
But once again, You’re a genius Swaim.
And it’s also probably better for a gay couple to be in a loving, healthy relationship, with kids who they’ll love than a straight couple who try to asphyxiate their kids and give each other herpes…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:14 am
To Swaim: Here here! I don’t come to cracked for politics and was sort of worried when I read the title of this blog, but I’ve never been more pleasantly surprised.
And to Patrick way up there: Gay marriage is very much a civil rights issue and it’s certainly an apt comparison. Homosexual men and women are degraded, harrassed, and attacked for their lifestyle all the time, and I’ve wittnessed it first hand. Hell - I’m straight, but I’ve been called all manner of names and yes even physically attacked because my sister is gay.
Did you know that the law protects you from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and even obesity, but not homosexuality? That there are even legal battles going on to make it acceptable to harrass homosexuals on the grounds of religion?
Yeah - I’d say comparing this to fighting for the rights of african americans is definitely appropriate.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Did I say “pubic hair”?
What I really meant to say was antlers… I just grew antlers…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:08 am
That was brilliant.
I’m a committed Christian and I thought you hit the mark.
The bible talks about how those who try to be “religious” are the hypocrites and evil-doers. The kind that Jesus would have projectile vomitted fish and love over. And I’ve always believed, along with a huge proportion of the Christian world that being “religious” like this Orson Scott Card douchebag is simply not what God wants. And Jesus vomitting fish and stomping the colons of near by pharisees is sufficiently badass.
Although I’m not sure that a “marriage” would be very propituous for the gay community, though. The thing is, marriage is considered to be a religious insitution. Now, as a Christian I believe in the sanctity of marriage, but I also believe in the rights of humans as humans, and the I believe that the bible explicitly states this.
Anyway, my point is, since marriage is considered a religious institution, I think that the homosexual community should consider campaigning for a Civil Union, of which I would be in full support. A Civil Union would protect the gay community from the stigma of a binding religious institution that denied gays and lesbians their rights. A lawful Civil Union that offers the same rights as a marriage, but without the “Religious Institution” tag would probably be a lot better for the homosexual community…
But that’s just me. I’m 16 and I just grew pubic hair.
Also, I listen to Weezer, so my perception of the world is skewed and nerdy.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Preach my brother preach…. excellent blog
August 12th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Right on,The B!!
I also told my children about the “imaginary friend” that people have in Jesus and/or insert your diety(s) here. They are the product of gay sperm and lesbo ovum and are supremely cool, open-minded little monsters. My neighbors happen to be hard-core fundamentalists who actually voted against banning gay marriage. They told me that they aren’t “into homosexuality” but can’t see why gays should not be afforded the exact same legal rights as heterosexual couples. They will, of course, inform their children of eternal gay damnation, but are also setting a good example that equality is important, even if we don’t agree on the “morality” question. My Mormon co-worker said the same thing. I told them all about OSC’s viewpoint on gay marriage (as we are all sf fans) and they were disgusted. I detest KKK rallys, fascist speech and the color yellow. But I won’t try to ban them…I will protest them and get alternative viewpoints to their bullshit out there instead.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Oh, and because I feel strange in my lack of immaturity… maybe he should re-title it “Bender’s Game”
August 12th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Daiichi, I do agree that ignoring the democratic votes of citizens is dangerous and undemocratic, but tell me this:
If more than three-quarters of Pennsylvania voted in a statewide election that every non-white should be lynched in front of the Liberty Bell, coinciding with the post-Groundhog Day festivities, how would you feel? Moreover, if you were the person counting those votes, wouldn’t you feel a deep, dark desire to be a corrupt bastard for just one day? You know, to stop mass lynchings of innocent people? How dark thy heart must be to commit the treacherous act of preserving freedoms.
See, Swaim is right: it’s a non-issue. Just as slavery is a non-issue. The contradictions in the Constitution are slowly, over time, being corrected. “Liberty and justice for all… as long as you’re white, own property, and weren’t born with a pair of ovaries” has now been officially amended to the slightly less confusing “Liberty and justice for all… unless you’re gay, non-Christian, or enter an airport”. Thus, the racism, misogyny and bigotry can be left up to the people on a more personal, intimate level, so you can be sure, as you get paid less because you have a vagina, that the government ostensibly frowns upon your situation. Yay you.
And it’s probably time to set aside the crusades and focus on making this country a better place to live in. Things we lack, such as multi-partisanship and runoff voting, are seen as laughable by all the people who personally benefit off the current system and convince their followers in flashy TV interviews to believe the same. Because of this, two shitty candidates selected by CNN, NBC, ABC and the like will continue to be your choices forever, and millions of people will die in pointless wars… but as long as the gays can’t marry, we are a free and prosperous people. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: impenetrable logic. Thank god for arrogant famous faces, or we’d have no idea people are so horrible
August 12th, 2008 at 3:38 am
ppl just because you disagree with something an author says doesnt mean that you hav to give up reading the books written by that author i myself havnt read enders game and will gladly read it all while hating the author whose name will never be utered by these lips again. that being said great article : )
August 12th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Ender’s Game was good but real leadership requires way more ass-kissing.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:18 am
The part about in Revolution in the Constitution that they don’t mention is the part where the losers are jailed for life as enemies of the state or executed as traitors. More careful wording would have been “All citizens have the right to *try* and overthrow the government” and, as an added note, “May God help whoever loses”.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Is OSC objecting to the IDEA of gay marriage? Or is he objecting to the fact that the justice system did not support his view that his heterosexual marriage is special and deserves to be protected?
Well, I read one of his anti-gay-marriage articles (he has been doing this thing for a while - go to http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html) and I was very surprised. I figured that the author of “Ender’s Game” would thoroughly believe that, “The would would be a very boring place if everyone was like me/him/you/them/us.”
I am very disappointed.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:11 am
@ Shane
Not to mention the whips, chains and anal lubricants the few who don’t divorce have to bring into play to keep the marriage going
August 12th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Don’t forget the argument that gay marriage violates the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
I wonder how much the 70% devorce rate violates the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:06 am
All this is really beside the point that the series seems to be (and I quote Elaine Radford here) “an apologia for Hitler”.
Ya, I said WHAT?!?!?! too!
Go read her essay on her blog ( http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html ) I’ve been checking & she’s got a real point, there are just WAY to many coincidences.
I still feel like I’ve been hoodwinked by Mr Card.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:03 am
@ Austin regarding a comment way the hell up there.
There is no logical argument against polygamy as far as I’m concerned, it’s a matter of what floats your boat.
And unlike pedophilia and bestiality, homosexuality does not infringe on the rights of another living creature who is unable to legitimately consent. Unlike incest, homosexuality does not potentially lead to deformed offspring (in fact, it just so happens to lead to NO offspring, babies being something the world could certainly benefit from producing a little less of).
August 12th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Austin
So providing equal rights & privileges to people you disapprove of is sliding down the slippery slope?
Ok, So I can say that your groups ability to impose your religious belief that a gay marriage is “bad” and should not be allowed means that we are already well on the way down the slippery slope of allowing certain religions a good deal too much control over other people.
What’s next? I suppose you want to take away the ability of the races to intermarry too? That was at the top of your slope after all… how about Morality police? honor killings? Where does your groups desire to control others stop? Does it ever?
More to the point, what makes you think we should allow you to? Why should we listen to YOUR values more than someone else’s?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Talking of a slippery slope that leads to bestiality, incest and pedophilia is being willfully disingenuous, at best. Sex between consenting adults of the same sex DOES NO HARM. On that day in the future when goldfish become sentient beings with the freedom to make moral choices then I will certainly have no problem with human-goldfish love. As for pedophilia, we have very good developmental reasons for having a demarcated “age of consent” before which sexual activity carries a great risk of long-term psychological harm to a human being. Regarding incest between adults, none for me, thanks, but if science ever developed a way to obviate the problems associated with recessive gene expression, then I would say live and let live. The operative principle here is DO NO HARM. No slippery slope there.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Michael, I want you to know I love you and this whole goddamn awesome article you wrote. It’s really wonderful.
And in your honor, I will make out with another woman and dedicate it to you.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Just from the topics of his books and the actions of some of his characters, Orson Scott Card has to be a closeted gay man. He appears to be obsessed with gay sex. He remains a talented but deeply flawed writer because his Mormonism makes him deeply confused about ethical issues and limits his imagination.
As a former Mormon and out gay person myself, I can tell you that there is nothing quite like the Mormon mindfuck, especially if you are Gay, but also if you ever question authority, and especially if you desire intellectual independence of thought to find your own way to the truth as you can best find it.
Being Gay just puts a bit more of an incentive on this.
A little bit of intellectual honesty is all it takes to see that the Mormon ideology messes people up emotionally, destroys family relationships, and encourages a disturbing, lazy, unquestioning obedience to established authority even when such authority it is very sadly mistaken, ignorant, and just plain WRONG.
Anyone that comes to this understanding has two choices: leave the church with whatever sanity they have left, or as Orson has done stay inside but go completely nuts.
Which explains what he is doing now. It is pitiable that such an obviously intelligent person could come to this kind of insanity, but that is what the Mormon church does to people.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:43 am
To Phil:
Fantastic! If the whole family, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, wants to bind together and help raise my children, Great! I wholeheartedly agree, that is how a traditional family should operate.
Glad we could see eye to eye.
Okay, for real, I’m going to bed.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:40 am
I love a good discussion, Never thought id have it on Cracked.com (lol)
See you all tomorrow perhaps..
August 12th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Um, that’s what the court does. It rules laws constitutional or unconstitutional.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:39 am
To PoliticallyConcerned:
I know I said I was going to bed, but I”m not done yet.
Basic Logic? Evidential Basis? My claim that we’re sliding is Self Evident. It’s the WHOLE reason we’re talking right now.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:36 am
I agree with Card. If you read his article (http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586&fh=1) it’s clear that THIS blogger is not doing the article unbiased justice. What Card complains about is that the California court threw out a legitimate VOTE OF THE PEOPLE to keep “marriage” as between a man and a woman–because, the court asserted that obeying the voice of the people was “unconstitutional.” The State Constitution does not guarantee marriage between homosexuals, but the Court chose a vague imprecise phrase in the Constitution to imply that it does.
It is a dangerous precedent to allow a State Court to create laws despite what a democratic vote of the people say, don’t you think? That path leads to tyranny.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:33 am
So a Mormon is upset by unconventional marriages…hmm…
Would it be OK if gay guys had like, 9 husbands?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Austin,
You need to do a little research the “traditional family of Husband, Wife, and Children” alone was truly a creation of the late 50’s It NEEDS to be abandoned in favor of the REAL traditional family
The traditional family before that included every blood living relative you had all the way out to 3rd and 4th cousins, Parents, Grand parents, great and if you were lucky Great Great grandparents.
At that point parents had some stable base upon which to learn to raise their children and usually someone had been through it before & was able to offer advice or at least warnings about what didn’t help.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:30 am
I’m with ya phil with the one edit that someone should be policed if they negatively effect anyone(within reason).
frankly i think the enders series are amazing books, and reguardless of osc’s opinion, they’re still great books. and books someone can learn alot from. i’m out, just try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater
August 12th, 2008 at 2:27 am
To Austin:
>>I don’t think it’s a logical fallacy if it’s playing out right now. I’m sure they also said, “If we allow interracial marriage, soon we’ll have to legalize homosexual marriage”. Looks like that’s happening currently. You bring up the slippery slope. You don’t think it’s premature to count that out while we’re still sliding?
>>As for there not being any evidence to what I’m saying, I’ve provided none for it and nobody else has provided any against it. So far, we’re all going off opinion and argument without evidence.
Nice straw man argument. A straw man argument, by the way, is an argument whereby you attempt to misrepresent your opponents position, then refute that misrepresentation. In this case, you attempt to sway the argument by pre-assuming your argument is true, (as noted by the “looks like” which lacks any logical or evidential basis), and then re-asserting it’s truth.
Again, you are making the logical fallacy “If A then B and C”. You have yet to show that A leads to B or C. And since you are the one making the claim that “If A then B and C”, the burden of proof lies on you to prove it. So get out your evidence, or take a basic logic course.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:22 am
cam,
Thanks, often the correct political answer is the one that pisses off everyone equally.
By the way I’m not fine with poligimay or not I don’t really have an opnion about it other than to observe that it was hard enough to find a single woman I could love and trust that could put up with my BS. The chances of finding 10 other people?? Pfffft! It aint gonna happen.
Actually my opinion is that It’s none of my damm business what you do in your house with your life unless it directly affects me.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Seriously?? There is a difference between possessive and plural. Grow up, Swaim
August 12th, 2008 at 2:19 am
wait, dwayne are you saying mormons do the straw man thing, or that they’re done the straw man thing to?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:17 am
To Phil:
You called it a ridiculous example, using quotes. I never used that word, in fact, I meant for it to be totally plausible. It’s meant to illustrate the precarious nature of redefining long held cultural values in a matter of one generation.
And yes, I am using the slippery slope argument. I’m proposing that we’re on one.
I’m going to stop playing devil’s advocate and just state my opinion. I agree with O.S. Card that the traditional family of Husband, Wife, and Children has been taken for granted and abused to the point of it almost being abandoned. I can’t off the top of my head think of a single society that has done this that I would want to follow after. It’s my understanding they don’t last long, though I’m no scholar on the subject.
It’s late, and I have work tomorrow. Thanks for the civil responses to my comments, I appreciate it.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:16 am
whompingwally
It also says that eating shellfish (shrimp lobster clams etc) is as bad as sin as homosexuality, as a matter of fact it repeats that warning twice as much as the warning about being gay using exactly the same words (translated to abomination).
I don’t see baptists (or any other group to my knowledge) not eating shrimp cause they are afraid that the world will go all to hell.
Offtopic I know but are there any Jewish folks out there? is shellfish forbidden and is it a rule observed by those of your faith?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Mormons are among the most popular straw men and straw women out there, possibly exceeded only by a Mormon writing science fiction. I never was impressed by people who kicked the sh!t out of the Orson Scott Cards of my high school and am not impressed here.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am
ha phil,
you’re freaking great. i was on the fence about you till that last post. i agree with you completely, a civil union allows all the legal benefits, a marrage is a promise of fidelity to your significant other, (and god if you want) but i cant tell you how many pro gay people have screamed homophobe at me when i talk about a civil union being enough for everyone.
its all about the political power play, from both sides of the fence. disgusting. but good call
August 12th, 2008 at 2:08 am
I agree with ryan. and yea phil you did answer the polygamy thing, and its cool that you’re cool with it, i mean you and most the eastern world. but you’re not a majority in america. and it doesn’t really matter.
now, i’m not equating man lovin’ to islamic extremism, thats my preface, but when do your beliefs matter? we’re infidels and if we just want to let others do as they please, we’ll mostly be beheaded.
the big liberal push is to accommodate everyone. but what happens when said accommodations take our rights from us.
notice in that last sentence thats actually a pro gay statement. i only think the slippery slope is the demoralization and desensitization of our country, leaving us like rome of old, ripe for the plucking.
also. this is pointless and we’d all do good to sleep.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Look, I really don’t think that the government should redefine marriage, as a matter of fact I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely.
I have always thought that it was an uncomfortable juncture between Church and State, legally sanctioning a religious rite & changing someone’s legal status based upon it does not seem at all separate to me.
In my opinion the Government should ONLY do civil unions and Churches should ONLY do marriages.
Of course a church marriage should only give you sanction in the eyes of your god, if you want sanction (rights) in the eyes of the state you will need a civil union also.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:07 am
well hang on. i dont oppose gay marriage, or anything homophobe like that. but a few people are trying to say the bible says it’s ok to be gay. it does say here and there that it isnt ok to be gay. i mean sorry, but it does. it also says a lot of other dumb shit like eye for an eye (vengeance anyone?) and goats are evil (wierd). so anyhow i dont believe any of it, but it does say god doesnt like people being gay. too bad i stopped having imaginary friends when i was 6
August 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am
To Phil:
What should my or anybody’s personal religious beliefs dictate? If they don’t impact how I vote, then I don’t know what they should impact. Voting determines the legislators. Legislation outlines commonly held values. So far, we’ve gone with a pretty traditional Judeo-Christian ethic (no lying, cheating, or stealing, etc). Laws are in large part meant to defend what we, as a governed group, decide is right, moral and fair. If a man beats his wife, it’s still wrong, even if she stays with him.
Honest question, can the state prosecute domestic violence if the spouse is unwilling to press charges? I honestly don’t know, I’m asking.
Regardless, I think my religious views have every place helping me decide how to vote, and I would hope that the majority vote would be upheld.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Oh my god.
This was a Triumph.
Michael Swaim, you are the only person who has ever caused me to give a standing ovation while alone and in front of my computer.
BRAVO!
August 12th, 2008 at 2:03 am
This will pretty much be a non-issue once those gays find the cure.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:59 am
quote “Austin
And as long as we’re redefining marriage, why not redefine “adult”. I’ve known many teenagers who have a better head on their shoulders than some of the people I went to college with. Let’s bring the legal adult age down to 16. Is it okay now for a 30 year old man to marry a 16 year old girl? Let’s pretend it’s legal. How about a 30 year old man and a 16 year old boy. Is it right? Is it healthy for the two “adults”? Is it healthy for society?”
Um, There are places where a 30 year old man CAN legally marry a 16 year old girl, how is that me putting words in your mouth?!?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I read the article he wrote and he never said that he wants Americans to rise up and overthrow the government. he asked when people would start to say that, when enough would be enough for some people.
the whole length of the article he talks about the importance of marriage and that the government has no right to change it’s definition. in addition, he denounces the teaching that same sex marriage and unwed couples are just as good as real marriage in schools. he then complains that homeschooling is being threatened so that even if the schools start teaching this stuff, the parents won’t be able to home school.
this is blown way out of proportion and is an obvious case of telephone. you can’t write an opinion article based off of a faulty summary article. use the real thing
August 12th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Cam,
I think I did cover the polygamy thing and also my opinion of “what it will do the the children”.
Also, I didn’t call him an idiot, I told him that his personal religious beliefs should not rule those of other or no religion.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:54 am
To Phil:
They aren’t ridiculous numbers, your quotes put words in my mouth. I deliberately picked numbers that seemed feasible.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
I’m all for polygamy, except for the marriage part. Just indiscriminate group fucking.
Tom Cruise and Will Smith are douchebags. My name is earl? Negro, please. I do like Robert Downey Jr., but then I also like drugs. And I like Christian bale, but I also like hitting my Mom. I guess we haven’t really settled anything, huh?
Night, all.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
To PoliticallyConcerned:
I don’t think it’s a logical fallacy if it’s playing out right now. I’m sure they also said, “If we allow interracial marriage, soon we’ll have to legalize homosexual marriage”. Looks like that’s happening currently. You bring up the slippery slope. You don’t think it’s premature to count that out while we’re still sliding?
As for there not being any evidence to what I’m saying, I’ve provided none for it and nobody else has provided any against it. So far, we’re all going off opinion and argument without evidence.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Austin,
By the way, you should take a look at the age of marriage laws in the US and the rest of the world before you go telling others what to set the numbers at.
There are places, “civilized” places where your “ridiculous examples” are already legal (at least between a man and a woman)
August 12th, 2008 at 1:49 am
..um, from a bystandards perspective. austin you’re taking it a little too far, and bestiality is gross. phil, you’ve never answered the polygamy charge. and saying that austin is being an idiot, doesn’t actually acknowledge his point.. which is a valid one(atleast with polygamy)..
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Austin
Setting up strawmen over and over only gets your arguments knocked down as the fallacies that they are.
Face it, we aren’t going to fall for your knee jerk BS, you are going to have to actually THINK and REASON to sway anyone with your arguments.
Or perhaps you will just makes me decide that obvious troll is obvious.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:43 am
To Phil:
Wasn’t the motion against gay marriage in California passed by the majority? Wasn’t it the action of one or a handful of people in key positions that have brought about this most recent flurry on the issue?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:41 am
To Jane:
Pedophiles don’t see the difference. 50 years ago, homosexuals were anathema in society. They were not accepted, they were looked down on as perverts. I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying, why should I think that in 50 years pedophiles won’t be openly accepted as homosexuals are today.
Also, according to the consenting adults issue, that leaves the field wide open for marriage between two or more adults of either gender. Polygamy and Bigamy and Group marriage are okay by that reasoning. How about marriage where one party can neither give nor reject consent? How about marriage to animals? Who is going to define if they’re consenting? P.E.T.A.?
And as long as we’re redefining marriage, why not redefine “adult”. I’ve known many teenagers who have a better head on their shoulders than some of the people I went to college with. Let’s bring the legal adult age down to 16. Is it okay now for a 30 year old man to marry a 16 year old girl? Let’s pretend it’s legal. How about a 30 year old man and a 16 year old boy. Is it right? Is it healthy for the two “adults”? Is it healthy for society?
Again, I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I’m looking for an actual answer.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Austin
Nice attempt at a strawman, However polygamy between consenting adults is nothing like the other fantasies you are pushing.
No one is asking you to modify your religious beliefs or rituals, we only want everyone to have the same civil rights as everyone else.
That said, If society decides that polygamy between consenting adults should be accepted and then just like homosexuality it becomes legal, then Yes it will be allowed. And you still wont have anything to say about it.
as to what will happen to the children of a marriage with 12 parents,
If you remember (or do a little research) children USED to be raised by multiple generations of parents, grand parents, aunts and uncles and their families as a GROUP. The “nuclear family” containing ONLY 2 adults and 2.5 children was a creation of the late 50’s & early 60’s and as far as I am concerned has created the most incompetent generation of parents ever seen in any society to date.
Lastly,
You have to realize that this is the land of the diverse, WE the majority cannot allow YOUR religious beliefs to rule others of other religions, or no religion for that matter.
If you don’t like it you are welcome to go form your own insular religious community and keep the likes of US out. We wont mind. I promise. Heck I might even show up & buy a quilt someday.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:36 am
The only thing i dont like about this article is how mormons are lumped into the dense illogical crowd. orson isn’t my spokesman.
also, how many people like tom cruises movies? or will smiths? or my name is earl? but you dislike scientology? what about iron man and robert downey jr, but you dislike excessive drug abuse? or christian bale, but you don’t like hitting your mom?
I’m saying you can love the rose, even if the bush is a thorny freakin’ weed.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Swain = Swaim
oops
August 12th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Amusing AND eloquent–thanks for taking the time, Swain.
I read your piece, and the piece you linked to, and the OSC original in MT, and I can’t see how you’ve misrepresented Card’s opinion. Seems to me you nailed it.
Before I go, one more @Person—did I understand you correctly?
“Intolerating African Americans is wrong, but intolerating racists to the same extent that they intolerate African Americans doesn’t make you any better. In fact I could almost say that you only make the racists look good by doing that.”
What the fuck?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Austin, here are some answers to your questions:
>>Suppose society opens the door to homosexual marriage. It’s now redefined, any two consenting adults have the right to be joined in matrimony.
>>What is society’s answer when another group wants marriage redefined for them. What happens when polygamists want legal recognition? Pedophiles? Zoophiles? What happens when there aren’t swingers anymore, there are a dozen people who all want to get married to the other eleven? Please think about the societal implications of this, and, relative to the point OSC made, what impact will this have generations down the line?
>>Are we going to tell these groups that it’s okay for gays, but not them?
First of all, I don’t think Orson specifically made this argument… but I’ll answer to it anyways.
Yes, yes we are going to tell these other groups that they can’t marry. You see, you’re using what’s known as a “slippery slope” argument. It’s an example of a logical fallacy. You are claiming that by allowing homosexual marriage (A), it necessitates a multitude of other things, such as Pedophiles (B) or Zoophiles (C). Since (B) and (C) are bad, we should not allow (A). What you completely fail to understand is that (A) does NOT lead to (B) and/or (C). There is no evidence for that conclusion; there is no rational behind that conclusion. Hence, the argument is invalid.
The same arguments were made when interracial marriages were outlawed. “If we allow people of different races to marry, eventually pedophiles and zoophiles will be allowed to marry.” This is, of course, completely ridiculous. Interracial marriage has not caused pedophiles or zoophiles to marry. Nor will homosexuality. It’s a bogus, invalid, and ridiculous argument, one that has been used for far too long.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Referring to Austin’s comment.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
What kind of idiot cannot see any difference between homosexuals (two consenting adults mature enough to be aware of the implications of their decision to have sex with each other so that their consent actually means something) and pedophiles (adults exploiting their power over children)?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Oh come on…Like “Ender” isn’t some thinly-veiled coded nickname for a butt-bandit.
OSC is totally Bear, and hates all things queer (himself included) for it. Methinks the fairy doth protest too much.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:20 am
So,
I found that Elaine Radford has a blog & has posted her essay there. I still have no online copy of Mr Card’s rebuttal. If I find one I’ll Post it.
http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html
I cant believe I’m so upset about this, I read those books like 10 or 15 years ago but I just cant let it go.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Jay, I think it had something to do with the nonsense you all believe being about as progressive as a steam-powered dodo bird, but I will admit Mormon women are usually hot.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:14 am
THANK YOU. Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking, and for putting it so eloquently.
I too wept during Speaker for the Dead, and now I weep at Orson’s blind innate stupidity.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
You called him (along with the majority of Mormons you know) impervious to logic, and then completely failed to answer to any of the points he made in his article.
Suppose society opens the door to homosexual marriage. It’s now redefined, any two consenting adults have the right to be joined in matrimony.
What is society’s answer when another group wants marriage redefined for them. What happens when polygamists want legal recognition? Pedophiles? Zoophiles? What happens when there aren’t swingers anymore, there are a dozen people who all want to get married to the other eleven? Please think about the societal implications of this, and, relative to the point OSC made, what impact will this have generations down the line?
Are we going to tell these groups that it’s okay for gays, but not them?
I’m genuinely curious to know what you all think. And please don’t just call me a dumb-a$$, I’d like an actual answer to the hypothetical.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Localroger Fan
Great, that link has me NEEDING to go to my local library to get and read the essay called Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman by Elaine Radford and the rebuttal by Card in Literary Review.
I have to agree with the Author of the article at the link that the last book was nothing like the first two, I remember thinking to myself that it was actually not written by the same person. To discover that I may have been right and we all have been hoodwinked…
(localroger’s link in case you missed it… http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/193926/689 )
August 12th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Quite the rant. It is really frustrating to see the lengths that Mormons will go to in order to “protect the family,” because- as you said- they are just losing focus of their supposed gospel of love and setting themselves up for problems. You can completely see the writing on the wall, it is ironic how prophetic we can be about it, and yet they will never “get it” until it is too late.
Their current policy of trying to quash any sort of gay civil status or liberty will become a major stumbling block for them in the future; It is already a hang-up for so many people. To stand a chance of survival, they will eventually have to accept it and try to rewrite their history to show that they were always supportive of homosexuals, just like they had to do with their policies and doctrines on African Americans.
Do we ever learn? Mormons started out as a progressive bunch (to say the least), what happened?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:53 am
hey, stop discrediting fat people by lumping us with Orson Scott Card — we may be fat but at least we’re not ASSHOLES
August 12th, 2008 at 12:51 am
again, nice rant. one thing though, re: “How about working on some of those deadly sins before throwing the first stone?” The “seven deadly sins” are a Catholic thing, it’s not even a footnote in LDS scripture.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I agree with this post whole-heartedly. Not only raised LDS, I’m a practicing Mormon. Homosexuals have the right to get married if they want to. It’s not my problem what goes on in their bedsheets, and if thats what they want, thats cool, no skin off my hide. For all those religious zealots and homophobes who think gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage, you gotta remember that not only are there civil marriages, but religious too. And if your religion is helping develop your hate/dislike for homosexuals, chances are your church will perform a marriage ceremony to which homosexuals can’t take a part in anyway, so the sanctity of that marriage will be untouched.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
So you are saying, it isn’t cool to hate gays and blacks anymore? Why am I always the last to find out? And Jews? Can we still hate them?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am
As much as I enjoyed reading this article for its humor, I think that you actually believe the premise of this article; that OSC is a homophobe that is trying to do exactly like you suggest.
However, if you do read the article once or twice, you see the problem may lie elsewhere. I don’t think his primary concern is actually the union of homosexuals; rather, I think his concern lies with the “cheapening”, so to speak, of marriage. If it doesn’t mean anything anymore, if it doesn’t have strict definitions, why uphold it as anything useful anymore?
I can see his perspective. I don’t agree with it, mind you, but it does bring on what I believe to be similar fears. If marriage means little to nothing, what keeps people working in a relationship, with all the inherent responsibilities to the children involved, when the going gets tough? On the one hand, divorce can be an alternative when a relationship doesn’t work on a fundamental level (toilet seat up is not a fundamental level), but it shouldn’t be a recourse just because you didn’t commit enough time before the marriage to make sure it would work out (6 months together? That’ll work!). Quite frankly, I don’t like the idea of being a father to children whose mother thought they weren’t worth enough to take care of. I’m not saying this is homosexuals’ fault; rather, it is a trend with marriages (and divorces) that has been increasing, not decreasing, in recent decades. When grandparents are getting divorced after 30+ years of marriage, you begin to wonder.
Read the original article. It’s not perfect, but it comes not from bigotry, but a different understanding of the value of definitions (and marriage) that it makes sense for an author to have. The “teaching of our children” part comes, not from a fear that the children themselves will become gay for whatever reason, but that the respect for marriage, already tarnished and weakened, will disappear entirely.
And to make it perfectly clear, I think gay marriage should be legal. It’s not perfect, but I think homosexuals would feel like second-class citizens if laws tried to give them “civil unions.” It’s like Jim Crow all over again; “separate but equal.” Also, I like Cracked.com, but this isn’t the place for this kind of writing. It’s personal ridicule, not satire.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Card is awesome. You are an idiot. If you read Ender’s Game, you’d know that it wasn’t the kick in the nuts that killed Bonzo– he was already dead.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
This makes me so unbelievably sad and angry. Until reading this I LOVED Card but I just can’t support someone who is such a bigot. sigh….
August 12th, 2008 at 12:35 am
@ brandizzle
But once again, as this Orson Scott Card fellow has done by expressing his intolerant opinion, the good folks at Cracked may too express their intolerant opinion.
Freedom of expression is a two way street pal.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
[...] and hatred wants us to raise arms against any queers who feel like expressing their love legally.read more | digg story Uncategorized [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 12:28 am
That was great, man. Thanks for saying that.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
I know why he’s freaking out!
He thinks its MANDATORY.
Jokes aside, there are stronger (and more often repeated) biblical prohibitions against eating shellfish than there are against being homosexual, LOOK IT UP.
A personal note to Mr Card,
Good Job! Way to Ruin all my enjoyment of ALL your books!! I guess I’ll go remove them all from my personal permanent hardback collection & burn them at a gay rally!
And By the way, I’m Happy, Straight, Married and have gay friends that deserve the same CIVIL RIGHTS I have in my marriage.
Perhaps we should separate out the government sanctioned Civil Union from marriage entirely and make couples of all types get a Civil Union and then if they wish they can go to their religious leaders for marriage.
It seems fair to me that the religious nuts can have their way with their rituals so long as the sane among us can ignore them.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I don’t have a huge problem with gays and (oh snap) I’m a christian. I really don’t think its right, obviously, but I wont refuse to be friends with a gay or even spend every minute with them trying to convince them its wrong. My opinion is my opinion. Yes really. And I don’t think Card is being rational either. There are greater issues needing to be addressed.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I am Mormon, and I have not been too happy about all the anti-gay things that I have been hearing in church lately. But I guess I’m not a hardcore Mormon, because they would never visit a site with pictures of Jesus spewing fish. Great article, I agree with it 100%
August 12th, 2008 at 12:18 am
First of all I agree with the position youve taken.
Secondly, I’m only as much of an expert on Orson Scott Card as a brief skimming of the OSC wikipedia entry makes me.
That said, this article is ridiculous. I mean, you pretty much display shamelessly the main reasons why people hate liberals; namely, the fact that you would sacrifice basic rights (free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press? Anyone?) in favor of “progress” and “expanding rights.” Do you always go batshit and disown authors (or anyone else for that matter) that you happen to disagree with politically? If you took just five minutes to research Card’s opinions on homosexuality, you would know that he’s not exactly the homophobic monster you make him out to be.
“(Homosexuals are) human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself.” - Orson Scott Card
So aside from the one comment (most likely not meant to be taken literally and probably taken out of context) what basis do you have for condemning a man for his beliefs? Is that what you call progress? Years from now people aren’t going to remember one inflammatory (and, I’ll agree, absolutely retarded) comment; they WILL, however, remember a great science-fiction author who was willing to express his beliefs.
So, having gone on for far too long already, all I want to say is that I do not disagree with your position on gay marriage; I disagree with the fact that you have portrayed a great artist in light of one negative comment and a belief with which you disagree (which by the way, is not expressed in any of his work, as far as I know) instead of the work he has done. Does he not deserve the same right to believe what he wants that we all enjoy?
TL;DR
August 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Orson Scott Card has always been an asshat: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/193926/689
August 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
This type of person is just the type that makes me feel nauseated. I can’t even think of anything creative after reading this.
Just…..BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARF!!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The bible doesn’t have a fucking context. Silly Airick.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:13 am
[...] what has to be one of the most entertaining dress-downs I’ve been privy too, check out Orson Scott Card Wants YOU To Rise Up Against The Gay Menace from those wacky guys at [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I just lost a LOT of respect for Cracked.com
Seriously- stay out of divisive politics and personal slander. I expect better than this from what has been a consistently witty and intelligent website. I guess I was wrong…
August 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
So you are using the bible out of context to justify selfish feelings and dismiss god’s spoken words while using profanity and contention. hmmm. I wonder whose influence you could be under……hmmmmmm
August 12th, 2008 at 12:09 am
@ Patrick
You just slaughtered my favorite Ayn Rand quote, first of all, because you’re a bit of an ass.
Secondly, god you’re an ass. You are presenting yourself as one of those ‘your revolution is a joke’ types who seems to think that because they stand for nothing and no one this is indicative of superiority. Not everyone wants change for the sake of fashion and the issue of homophobia is not less important than womens rights, or the rights of racial minorities because we’re not enslaving the fags or denying them the right to vote or some such thing.
Gays are a minority, if homosexuals are discriminated against it still = mistreatment of a minority.
There is no argument that human rights have not strongly progressed towards acceptance of all.
One more thing, King Asshead, you cannot compare abortion and gay rights. Abortion is a CHOICE, with a controversy centered around whether it can be considered murder. Homosexuality is a biological state with a controversy centered around what some omnipresent being will think.
It’s a little different.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Thank you.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Hey, I bought one of those big black vinyl cd’s of “Thriller” too, man. It’s all good. You know, Iams jerky treats on a biscuit with cheese ain’t too bad. Had to hide the action from my dog, though.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Motherfuckin brilliant. Wow. Wonderful, wonderful retort. Thank you for this!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:02 am
*his books
August 12th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I personally like his Shadow series. But I don’t think Card’s opinion should be reflected on his work. Granted it is a complete shock and begs one to realize he’s a jackass. But I still think books are good. Kind of like Michael Jackson. He’s white and a kid gazer. But the music’s still good back from when he was black.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Ender’s Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind (kinda): Great books
Anything else by Orson Scott Card: Not so much
Orson Scott Card: No
August 11th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Swaim, I also believe there’s a little bit somewhere in the New Testament about Jesus never actually saying anything about gayness, and just preaching the spread of love and understanding in general. He also said he was the “True Way,” and that what had come before him was null and void. With that pass I just gave you, I believe it’s Swaim for the winning touchdown at the Superbowl between Heaven and Hell that saves the world. Go Swaim, Go.
And I’m not even religious, but that is awesome, and I shall use this post as an argument in and of itself in any debates, term papers, and arguments I have in the future.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Who the hell cares what Card believes or does in his personal life? Ender’s Game is one of the best SF books ever written and Mr. Cards personal opinion on gay marriage is totally irrelevant. Can’t you separate the man from the work?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Whoa! Notice that was at EXACTLY 11:00? Coincidence? I think not.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Dr. Spork, I beg to differ. Hang on a sec. (carefully loads bowl…places mouth on chamber, lights lighter, burns bud, fills chamber, clears chamber, intakes additional o2, holds, deals with watering eyes and pounds chest with fist to keep it in, snorts multiple short times that don’t prove anything other than it was a good hit, exhales through both nose and mouth). Now we’ve solved the stoning issue, my man.
Titties?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
that was eloguent and funny and completely truthful. best blog ever.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
@Swaim
nice straw man, douchebag
whether i support homosexual marriage or not misrepresenting someone else’s viewpoint is weak. same goes for you AtomicSpike
August 11th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Swaim, I hereby volunteer to be your bitch for all eternity. Oh, and FYI, I live near OSC (Scott to his friends) and he is kind of an ass. It bothers me that someone whom I used to admire so much — prior to my actually meeting him — can be such an utter prick.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
[...] from Cracked.com Orson Scott Card Wants You To Rise Up Against the Gay Menace [...]
August 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I completely agree with everything you’ve said about homophobia… I’m not a lesbian (nor am I Mormon, gay, bi, Christian, homophobic, or anything else to do with this article) But you know what? I’m perfectly happy with my heterosexual life… and if the people next door are happy with their lesbian orgies, then what business of mine is it to complain? Some people probably think I’m going to hell (I havent even taken communion in like ten years or something… OMG!） But I like my life. If a gay or lesbian couple likes theirs, what right is it of anyone else to begrudge them that happiness and the legal rights that a married couple enjoy.
I love OSC’s earlier books… but he’s really pulled a George Lucas on us I think. Where once he was turning lives upside down with stories that touched on things our young minds had never thought of before, now he’s all about being Christian and family-friendly. Which is really lame. I respect his right to his beliefs as much as the right of gays and lesbians to marry…. but cant people just leave one another be?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Just because you’ve been fed lies by the conservative/liberal/jewish media doesn’t mean there aren’t a large number of gays/lesbians/mormons/rednecks on this website/advertising space.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
And why is it, that when we have an article/blog about Women, suddenly 50% of the commenters are women, when we have an article/blog about gay rights and Mormons, suddenly every single person on this comments page is gay/lesbian/mormon/redneck?
Please Swaim. Do NOT write the article on poop. I am scared of what will come out in the comments.
Everyone needs to take a chillpill in this comments section btw. The fact remains that OSC has about as much social influence as I do….
August 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
We’ve solved the stoning issue by combining it with the Christian ‘Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone’. We basically just sit there drinking non-alcoholic beer and eating pork-free pork rinds waiting for someone to pretend they haven’t sinned, and then we beat him for lying. The kid’s usually forgotten about entirely.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
@Chiyoru: The point being is the bible considers all sin equal in the eyes of God, so in principal I could put showing your grandmother 2 girls 1 cup in the same catagory as rape and murder when it comes to eternal consequences.
Unrelatedly, If you subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is a genetic trait and is recessive I have one question:
How the hell does it get passed on? Wouldn’t it be an evolutionary dead end?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I was going to say “I love you” but like.. ten other people already did. Or at least I read until I saw two people, and then assumed there were ten more.
Anyways, I do.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I can’t describe how awesome this was, you sir are a credit to humanity.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Shii:
Deuteronomy 21:18
Nuff said.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“I’m a firm believer that people are entitled to their beliefs, but with one exception: If their beliefs adversely effect someone else.” Loved that.
Another argument against gay marriage is that their adopted kids will turn out gay. This has been proven over and over again to be false. I would much rather kids be raised by homosexual parents than by abusive heterosexual parents.
I don’t really know what to think about religion. Most religions preach peace and loving your neighbor etc but there has been so much violence committed in history (and present). I mean, what would Jesus do? Could anybody actually beleive that he would discriminate against homosexuals?
Also I don’t think I’m going to judge the lifestyle of other people based on a book (the Bible) that was translated, messed around with, edited, translated again, censored, translated a third time, mistranslated and then translated into ANOTHER language. And that’s not even discrediting the original people who wrote it!
It surprises me that some people go out of their way to hate like that…well, nice article Swaim, funny and created an actual intellectual (well…) debate! On Cracked!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
While I applaud you for having the balls to tell us what you think without worrying about the likely crazy comments, I don’t recall there being any passages in the Bible telling us to stone our children for disobedience.
That’s Islam. :-p
August 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Well said.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Oh Swaim… you have no idea how happy you’ve made me today. I’ve often made arguments just like yours to those that would hate me (I’m a lesbian), only to have those arguments fall on deaf ears due to issues such as, as you mentioned, crazy religious bullshit, or the thought that they can disregard anything I’d say on the subject since I am, in fact, one of those dykes they hate.
I guess what I’m getting at is that its really nice to hear a (at least, probably) straight guy make that same argument… and to do so eloquently, without forgetting the standards of your website (yes, surprisingly enough, I mean that seriously) makes me a very happy member of the gay menace. So thanks.
By the way, Jesus should totally do a wicked ollie on a flaming skateboard. Yes.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Last of the Bloodline: “Just thought I’d mention, it’s not that God hates gays. God loves everyone, gays, rapists, murderers, jerks at the coffee shop, EVERYONE. It’s that being gay, or a rapist, or a murderer, or a jerk, is a slap in God’s face. It’s breaking his rules. He’ll always forgive us, but c’mon, why be an ass? He’s a great guy, and he deserves a bit more respect.”
…Did you seriously just put gays, rapists, and murderers in the same boat?
What the hell ass?
You, sir, are a seriously stupid fuck.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Kay, which one’s your girlfriend? Can we get a video link to some “simply wonderful” action.?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
So well-reasoned, so amusing, that it makes me want to marry like 10 dudes on principal.
Kudos, Swaim. Kudos.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Oops. Move along folks, nothing to see here…
August 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The embodiment of everything Cracked stands for? Damn; seems like they’d give me a paycheck if that was the case.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
@Istark-dude maybe you should switch to decaf. When you get old enough to drink coffee. I must confess that your arguements against religion have evaporated my faith and left me destitute. Honestly, exclamation points? How could any ones beliefs stand up to exclamation points?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
My girlfriend sent me the link. Simply wonderful.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
lol at Istark, you showed SO much more intelegence than the people you are protesting against. You seem like the epitomy of reason and logic.
oh wait, no i am wrong, you remind me of a newly athiest 12 year old with an internet connection.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
@Swaim-please, please be carefull. Your power to incite thoughtfull posts is awesome and should not be taken lightly. Remember as with great power comes the opportunity to really fuck shit up.
@J Papi- are you real? Or just the embodyment of everything Cracked stands for?
@Gladstone-no HBN? That had to be the most controversial part of the whole article…are you try to prove there is no God or that you are him?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
[...] LINK [...]
August 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Damn, I kind of feel akward for having my name as this. But hell, it’s the character not the writer. Right? Besides, if anyone could command a group of kids against the Buggers. It would be me…. Well, except for maybe Bean. But that’s a whole ‘nother series folks.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
This is a pretty worthless comment but I just wanted to say that was a great, well-written article, Swaim.
I honestly can’t believe it. It’s been a while since I’ve read Card, but I just can’t connect the novels to that kind of attitude, like a lot of other people, it seems. Anyway, you really said all there is to be said about it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Swaim, if I wasn’t already taken (by Gladstone), I would’ve fallen in love with you for this post.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Nice article. I laughed quite a bit.
I have to say to the four or five people who said that being gay was a choice, I can pretty much say it isn’t. At least not in my case. I’ve just never really been attracted to women. I did not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex as me, and it really weirds me the hell out when people say I did.
Though, in all honesty I hope no one ever truly finds out what causes homosexuality. Because JESUS FUCK I don’t want some crazy assholes trying to push for a “cure.”
Now on to the topic of Orson Scott Card. I’ve never really read his work, but I can’t say that people should stop reading his (Apparently very good, from what I’ve seen from these comments) books. Honestly, as long as authors aren’t openly antagonistic about the issues they disagree with in their actual books, I see nothing wrong with reading them. What I’d REALLY like to see is authors actually writing fiction without shoving their own views into it all. I enjoy seeing people bite the bullet and writing things in praise of or at least with an apathetic view on subjects they hate.
Umm… crap, that wasn’t funny at all…
TITS.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I KNEW you were a queer, Swaim. You crying on a bus from reading my bullshit proves it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Now let’s wait for the guy on here who claims to be Orson Scott Card…
August 11th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’d say the funny thing is that there was so much naked wrestling in Ender’s Game.
Like, so much.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Oh snap, Nacht. Thanks for the enlightenment. Your rigid definition of marriage has completely changed my life. My three wives and I appreciate it, and I will pray to Allah that the rain of holy fire smites you last. See, I was thinking I would make a man my fourth wife, but you set me straight, and now I shall spend eternity in Heaven. For that I thank you. If you are a woman, you may pay me a dowry and I shall take you to paradise with me.
What is a marriage to you? The vows? The declaration of love? Or the possiblity of the sex resulting in a child? I’m curious. But no longer bi-curious, thanks to you.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Jesus sucks cock in Hell.
There, I said it.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Tolerance is a great concept when we’re talking about how much vodka my body can tolerate before I end up violently ill and subsequently passed out on the floor of my parents bathroom (about a bottle) or how many prescription pain killers my stomach can handle before the lining starts ripping and I do some serious damage to my liver and kidneys (less than you’d expect). I am all about that sort of tolerance.
I despise people who sit around talking about ‘tolerance’ and tolerating other people / opinions / choices / actions because 9 times out of 10 these condescending, assholish bastards don’t fully understand that tolerance, in this sense, means much more than ‘agreeing to disagree.’ It’s actually recognition and respect of choices / opinions / actions etc without subsequent opposition or prohibition of the choice / opinion / action etc.
Also, screw tolerating choices / opinions / actions that degrade, limit, stereotype or promote hate.
Finally, to whoever was talking about marriage being a religious institution only, you may want to brush up on your history then take a look around you. Back in the day when monarchies ruled the world, the size of your penis was measured in how much territory you could conquer and Europe believed they were civilisation’s answer to the ducks nuts, marriage was almost exclusively practiced by the noble classes for the purpose of securing lineage. It really wasn’t until the late 17th / early 18th century that marriage become commonplace for middle class and eventually peasants. Really, super non-religious. In modern contexts, while many marriages are still conducted in churches / religious institutions, there are civil celebrants available to marry people who do not want to partake in religious ceremonies. Plus, consider the governmental tax / financial / social / legal benefits and rights that come along with marriage. Marriage is not a pure religious institution and it never has been. Of course, I’m just talking about marriage from a western world point of view.
Do you see what happens when you get nerds angry Swaim? They write needlessly long, poorly punctuated drivel in the comments section of cracked. I agree with J-Pappi, back to titties! (and maybe comics, or video games or vulgar sexual inneundo).
August 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Waaaaah. *plays the world’s smallest violin for you*
August 11th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Usually love your articles, way out of bounds on this one. Card is a great writer with his own opinions, and I will continue to read his books even if I happen to disagree with his political positions. It is so expected these day’s and so fashionable to be anti GOD and anti Christian that it’s become too easy to drag GOD into your small minded arguments. Go ahead and lampoon religion I’ll help you, but marriage is something entirely different. I will support a civil union giving full rights, inheritancy and whatever privileges are needed to make sure that no one has any more rights than anyone else, but marriage is between a man and a woman–period.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Oh damn. It didn’t quote DAVE’S brilliantly-written verbiage, I’m afraid, so yeah.. fill in the blanks!
P.S.: Burn in Hell Dave. Oh, wait… you can’t. IT DOESN’T EXIST!
August 11th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Hi Dave! I thought I’d have a little fun with your witty, intelligent post. Here goes:
<>
NEWSFLASH: Every single religion ever created by anybody who ever claimed to have some sort of divine connection was founded by either a con man (or men), or fucking idiots. There’s just as much truth (and bullshit) to Scientology, for instance, as there is to Christianity; your particular brand of fantasizing has just existed longer.
<>
Actually, Einstein, “The Bible” was never written as a single document. If you want to split hairs, we’re talking about an awful lot of documents there, most of them written separately.
<>
No; Christian faith is based on fiction. Just like Orson Scott Card’s books! How nice. No, I am not denying that the man called Jesus actually lived, but the son of God (who doesn’t exist, morons)?!? Come ON.
<>
Lol. Covenant with God. Honestly, you crack me up.
<>
A Christian talking about what amounts to looking for facts through the use of polls. Laughable.
<>
No he can’t. Cause he doesn’t exist!
<>
I certainly hope over half the readers are smarter than you, monkey boy. You still believe in invisible, uber-powerful, fire-shooting gods… which is pretty cool in my anti-Bush movies, but kind of pitiful in supposedly intelligent adults.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Nice rant.
I still like the Ender books. Nothing he says or does now can alter the words already in print. Guess Card can be added to the rather long list of amazing authors who were batshit insane.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Coming from a man who was raised in a Mormon household (and is now an atheist), I have to say that this was an awesome rant. I’ll never read an Orson Scott Card book again.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
talented people are often douches:
Disney (arch-conservative)
Hemmingway (…loser)
Picaso (mysogonist)
Jefferson (Slaves)
Eminem (douchy)
Beethoven (drove his nephew to suicide)
Kobe (rapist)
most dictators.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Comment; excuse me. I’m sure there were more hits. Though I agree the Book of Mormon was written by a con man. However, the Bible was also cobbled together in the 4th century by a bunch of dudes (not written by God as so many fundamentalists down here in the South think). Every religion on Earth was written by somebody more or less human, and thus subject to similar sets of truths, lies and myths. They’ve all got some value (different things to different folks), and they’ve all got some bullshit. Take it easy, folks! No biggie.
Now, back to titties…
August 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
My freshman english teacher actually taught the class that the fact that the Aliens in Enders Game were called buggers was symbolic of how gays are missunderstood and villanized. Yea so it turns out he was off a bit on that one.
I think Card and JK Rowling should do something like when 50 cent threatened to retire if Kanye West outsold him. The life and times of gay Dumbledore, vs… anti-homo alien killers. BTW mormon women are hot. Seriously- not relevant- but true nonetheless. How sick would it be if there were Mormon POLYGOMOUS LESBIANs (orgy madness!). Now thats something I could get behind…
August 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Dave, you were the 182nd hit today, which pretty much shoots your argument to shit.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Sorry, Spork; I should have stated that that was my opinion. My bad.
tshp, my mom has always had some fantastic oral and anal talents; that’s what’s helped me become such a bundle of joy as an adult. Morality is indeed taught at home.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I see a lot of ignorance in your article for someone who claims to know God in it.
First, Mormons aren’t recognized as Christians. They worship an entity that happens to be named Jesus but he isn’t the one from the Bible. They are bascially Scientology with a little more actual Faith and founded by a con-man.
Second, the Mormon Bible isn’t even the same as the Christian Bible. They have their own and you’re comparing it to the Old Testament and the New Testament. Three completely different documents.
Third, telling people to love their neighbors doesn’t mean Jesus told them to hate gays. He said to love your enemies. You need to learn that Christian faith is based on the things written in red.
If you’re going to quote something from the Old Testament you need to educate yourself that The New Testament was the beginning of a new covenant with God.
Why not ask every state to put it on the ballot? You know why? Because it wouldn’t pass anywhere. Maybe I’m wrong but I thought where it was legal was due to activist judges. Conservatives and Liberals alike will vote against. There is an overwhelming majority in the US against gay marriage. All legitimate polls show this.
And as for a bloody revolution: you guys might want to start supporting the 2nd amendment in your state.
That said, I don’t really care. Only God can judge as to whether anything is a sin.
You guys keep publishing such “comedy” on a humor website and you’ll see the same thing that Hollywood has seen with all of it’s anti-war/anti-Bush moves that have tanked. Every one of them. There are actors who have lost half their fan-base. If you guys were smart, you would remove this article before you lose half of your readers. Maybe if it was actually funny instead of a rant, you could pass it off as satire. Right now, it’s just garbage.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Of course, anyone who’s even glanced at Card’s website will have realised he was batshit insane some time back.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Hey Pappi, you didn’t get the key word ‘opinion?’ I should have spammed it a bit more.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
J-papi, I could agree more. Your insightful words speak to the heart of the issue with a clarity that is as a refreshing as it is true. I am proud of you. You know who else is proud of you? Your mom, she told me while I was fucking her in the ass. Which was impressive cause she had Swaim’s dick in her mouth.
(yeah that comment will get deleted) lol
August 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I’m with the Norwegian guy. Except that was 3 opinions, not 2.
Shit, now I’M craving onions.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I don’t know who this author is and I know I will never read any of his books. What I don’t understand about the bigger debate is how someone can spend so much time and energy hating and discriminating against people they don’t even know. Hate, regardless of whom its aimed twards is usually based in self loathing or denial. Whats so damn funny about the whole discussion, is that alleged hetrosexuals, spend so much time thinking about gay people. I doubt most gays and hetrosexuals give it this much thought, probably because they are too busy living life to give a s%#t about what the person next to them is doing.
What pisses me off is that people are always using God and the Bible an an excuse for whatever bigoted little idiot thing pops into their heads. Hello, Jesus never said start a religion and worship me. What happened was some pinheaded bigots decided to pimp the suffering of an innocent man, and low and behold, the sheep fell in line. Here’s some advice to homophobes: get gay, its on your mind enough so that might be your little brains way of telling you that its your true orientation. If you are a religous homophobe, consider the fact that God made you, so God must be pretty tolerant; and hey God gave you a brain, so you might try to use it instead of quoting from some book that seems more mind control then God’s Word. If that doesn’t work and living down here with all the sinners that God made in God’s image is bumming you out, get of your f#*king highhorse, you are no better then people you condemn.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I’m ashamed this guy lives in my city.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Thank you Mr. Swaim.
I have been losing my faith in the humen race in resent weeks, but after reading this, some of it has been restored. I am not american, and frankly the fanatic religious fervour over there is hard to comprehend for a Norwegian. I mean, there are lunatics who claim the word of god (yes, small g) for this and that over here too, but they are a fringe minority who are laughet off before people shrug and walk away. The only christian party here only has support of about 7% of the population, and even though they opposed gay marrige (gays are now allowed to get married on equal terms as straight people, and guess what, we are not all bathing in a lake of fire) they could, never - ever say publicly that they based their views on verses from the bible. That IS the reason, but you can’t be taken seriously saying it. The rapture horny evangelicals in your country scare the living shit out of me, and the fact that they are so profoundly scary is the only reason that they are not the laughing stock of all of europe. (We laugh anyway, but in a timid, nervous way).
To get your panties in a bunch because two consenting adults love each other, and wants to make that official like everyone else is nothing less than flabbergasting, and all because of some ancient text written based on word of mouth several centueries after the events they descripe is claimed to have taken place. Like zoooo ztuuupid.
Two of my opinions, because no one cares:
1. There is no god.
I mean, think about it, the whole notion is ridiculous.
2. From natures (evolution) side, the purpouse of our extistence is to procreate so that our genes survive. (And don’t give me that “gay is unnatural and brings no children, thus endangering our existance” crap, on the off chance that CIA detonates their gay bomb by accident, there wold still be no problem for us to procreate, we still all know how it’s done).
3. From a human point of view, the goal must be that as many people as possible can lead as happy and fulfilling lives as possible, without destroying other peoples happiness in the process. It’s quite simple. Why insist on causing missery for others..?
August 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Boobies? Vodka tonics? Dirty panties? Strippers? Those were the key words I got from the last 20 posts or so, and I say we start from there. Yeeeah. I’ll begin: “I’m all for boobies, vodka tonics, dirty panties and strippers. The reason being that they rock, especially when combined.” Thoughts?
August 11th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I agree with Swaim. And that’s my opinion of his opinion of that guy’s opinion. Don’t you challenge my opinion of his opinion of that guy’s opinion, unless it’s your opinion, in which case I won’t challenge your opinion of my opinion of his opinion of that guy’s opinion. Although I may have an opinion about it. Disagreeing with opinions is just an opinion. It’s what debate is all about. You know why you get to leave a reply here? The people at cracked want to hear your opinion about their opinions. I suppose thinking that they shouldn’t have opinions about others’ opinions is an opinion, but my opinion is that that opinion is wrong.
I have a sudden craving for onions. Be right back.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
All the books after Ender’s Game were unnecessary and employed weak plots with ridiculous deus ex machina twists. But I am heartened to learn that the much-reviled Michael Swaim actually has a redeeming quality: libro/necro-philiac
August 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ok, I just stomached most of this and I want to say thanks. I’d like to take a moment and say a few things.
#1. I am really disappointed in all you fundamentalist Christians out there. The lesbians, gays, emo guy, and just about everybody who agrees with Swaim are try very hard to start a nice good old fashioned flame war and you just aren’t participating. Where is the anger? Where is the intolerance? You’re letting me down. Worse than that you’re letting Jesus down, and if you keep it up he will vomit fish on you. Swaim has shown us the evidence and unless you feel like a sardine shower I suggest you make with the hate, and I mean now.
#2. I don’t really understand male homosexuality. I don’t believe anyone is born gay, I think its a choice. A choice they should be allowed to make. Since the age of 9 (when the Priest at my church lost interest in me) I have made the decision regarding what to allow into my body or not. Please don’t pawn off your choices on biology.
#3. Any man who declares himself straight, but then speaks against lesbians is a hypocrite! They like what you like. How can you disagree? Its like saying, I love chocolate, but you shouldn’t like chocolate cause its a sin, and evil. I just don’t get it.
Finally lets talk about what we can learn from gays. What shirt to wear on a date? Why my girlfriend cheated on me with my brother (ok obviously that was because of the whole premature ejaculation thing), what to buy women for their birthdays and, of course, what hair cut looks the best. Thanks for letting me vent.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh jesus! I just read the phrase “feisty Christies” and I almost peed in my last clean pair of panties. I don’t know what I love more: the Cracked blog, or the comments!
August 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
As a Christian (which Mr. Card the Mormon is not), I am always intrigued when the unbeliever rightly chastises the “believer.” In this case, whether or not Mr. Card is a Christian, he obviously thinks he is (”Mormon”) and therefore should, like any other Christian, be more concerned with getting out the gospel (even if it were his peculiar Mormon gospel) than anything else.
I am somewhat unnerved to hear of anyone calling for violent overthrow of government; yet more unnerving is the cause of that call being homosexuals. Technically, the “Christian” should know that the unsaved are “taken captive by Satan, to do his will.” In other words, their sin is what they’ll do until they are saved. Calling on laws or whatnot to force the homosexual into heterosexuality is exactly how one gets violent overthrow of the government, but not the way Mr. Card expects.
Congratulations on your successfully chastising the Christian for having his priorities far out of whack.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Awesome post - that is some good sh*t Swaim -
Knut Hamsun was like the most famous Norwegian writer in the 20th century. Turns out he loved Nazism so much he sent Goebbels his Nobel prize and even wrote Hitler an elegy after his suicide. The point is we shouldn’t expect writers to have a clue about society any more than we should expect politicians to stop bonking out of wedlock (TOTALLY part of the package) or expect the religious right to ever exhibit anything resembling Christian charity….
one other point to add to Deekay723 - 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..
August 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
i’m not quite sure what to say except excellent article!
Swaim, I salute you.
=]
August 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Even though I think he’s an ass and wouldn’t want to support him by buying his books, I don’t believe in book banning or book burning. I also think it’s naive to worry about what “could” happen. Morality is taught at home. They don’t teach things like that at a grade school level when it could even remotely become a hostile environment. Worrying about what could happen is what is keeping the glass ceiling firmly in place in all sorts of areas. Pushing the comfort level at the status quo is infinite. And I don’t hate the Christians for how they feel, I just hate the fact that 99% of them that I know preach compassion and love but don’t know how to live it. It’s funny because I believe myself to be a Christian. And it hurts me when I hear very unchristian like blather being spewed. And you won’t see that 99% comment on this blog. For one thing, they wouldn’t read Cracked and if they did they wouldn’t confess it. Anyway, all done. This has actually been very fun! And enough with the lesbian parties, where are the good old fashioned orgies?
August 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I went to my buddy’s bachelor party in San Diego right, everythings going great, the strippers show up and we all have a blast watching them pee on my buddy. I had a vagina lollipop and enough vodka tonic to kill a small village, it was after the girls left that things got really weird. My friend and soon to be groom was totally wasted, wearing only the diaper the strippers had put him in, comes over to me and asked if I thought he was smart and cool, I say of course not you’re a total donkey, he begins to weep and locked himself in the bathroom for 12 hours. Now that’s gay, who cares if Adam and Steve want a little piece of paper and a party. BTW, it’s Great Boobs Monday on my blog http://www.onblastatlast.com.
Hyde D Montage
August 11th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“Those tiny sausages they sometimes serve.”
Man I love those things.
Hey Swaim next blog just talk about puppies or sunshine or something everyone can get behind.
I’m sick of the deviciveness.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I cannot agree more, I grew up loving that whole series!! I read them every single year, but when I bought a recent book, Empire; nothing could ooze american imperialism more! Damn Card for luring us in and creating an amazing sci-fi series that I will teach to my children then scamming us into reading his right-winged neo-christian cooperate loving brown people hating junk. All that said, I will not be buying anything by him again…. either.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Every argument that Christians make against gay marriage is taken straight from the part of the Bible that tells Jews how to live. Everything from the Christian part of the Bible is all about love and understanding. :/
August 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Wow. I never thought I’d hear the boobie-obsessed men of Cracked stick up for the gay guys.
Nice
(My gay friend loves you!)
August 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/08/11/orson-scott-card-wants-you-to-rise-up-against-the-government-but-in-the-worst-way-possible/#comment-42196
Daniel, a little History refresher: The fascists are the ones who burned books as you are suggesting to do to Card’s works. So much for moral authority.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
awesome awesome GREAT entry!!
August 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
catlover55,
The apostle Paul wrote that he wished the jews who wanted to require the gentile Galatians to circumcise themselves would go all the way and emasculate themselves. I think that means that the apostle Paul was arguing that circumcision was no longer required.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Why, Card? I loved your books! Why have you forsaken us?
August 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I too have read almost all of his books and was a huge fan, that is until a few years ago when I heard him speak about an upcoming Ender’s Game movie. The fact that he’s a homophobic bigot does not surprise me in the least. The “talk” that I was unfortunate enough not just to witness but to actually stand in line for was hands down the most arrogant, self rightious speach I have ever heard. He even had the gall to pretend to be so far above everything that he didn’t even know who Quentin Tarantino was when discussing possible directors for the movie. He was such an inarticulate jackass that night that I vowed never to read any of his books ever again and now this insantiy just reinforces my disdane for all things Orson Scott Card, which is truely unfortunate because he’s a very skilled writer. Why doesn’t he just write his fiction and spare us his personal opinions. Thinking that we even care what he thinks about things not related to his books just exemplifies how self rightous he is. The issue isn’t even gay marriage (which I agree, shouldn’t even be an issue), the issue is that this world is full of people who think they are personally important enough to spew messages of hate and have people agree with them because of who they are. Well sorry to be the one to break it to you Orson, but you’re just not that important. The world would be a much better place if you would sit alone in your room and write fiction, stop trying to ineract with people, because frankly you are not very good at it.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Also, I wonder if he’s circumcised… since leviticus bitches about that too. If not, let’s get on that… *revs chainsaw*
August 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Jackie Daniels -
You find an article defending homosexuals’ right to marry refreshing. You close with reference to a hedonistic and deviant sexual act (Though a hot one, no doubt).
Somehow this strikes me as telling.
Homosexual marriage will not destroy the institution. It’s just a sign of how far gone it’s become. It shouldn’t be about hospital visits and health insurance (If someone wants anyone to have visitation rights, that should be their business). These things do not a marriage make.
The government needs to be out of the marriage business. Hetero, homo, lock, stock, barrel. It’s a purely religious institution.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
So very true, I myself am a gay man and have had this argument with feisty Christies before, the mere idea that someone would not consider me good enough to marry who I want is disgusting.
The way I see it, if hillbilly crackhead Joe mcWifepuncher can marry Susy “I’m on ecstasy, give me water or else me and the kid will die” Clanghorn without any real showing of it being more than just a drug fueled shotgun wedding, then how come I can’t marry someone that I actually love and care about to not throw down the stairs for years to come. It’s about common fucking decency and looking behind the veil of douchebaggery.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Mormons are evil and stupid and disrespectful toward minorities.
Orson Scott Card is a fascist whose books should be burned.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I had to get an account just to tell you how much you kick ass for writing this article. As a lesbian, it’s really refreshing to read something like this. I sent it to my girlfriend and I know she’ll love it as well.
If she and I ever have a lesbian orgy with our friends, we’ll call you up.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Deekay723 Says:
August 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
thanks for summarizing some of what is at the forefront of archeological research these days.
but while you are right this of course means mr Swain is wrong. gay marriage isn’t a progression to a more modern world as much as it is a regression to the way things were before the conservative period of the last few centuries.
seems there is a reason why we have been told for the last five centuries that the middle ages were ‘barbaric’. because the people who lived during and after the ‘enlightment’ didn’t want to be remembered of a time when religion didn’t dominate everyday life, when gay marriage was acceptable, when women were more than baby-machines and when black people where not ‘lucifer’ or ‘only good to work the fields’. (not to say it was an idillic wonderland back then, but a lot of things that are often referred to as ’stemming from the middle ages’ actually came around a little bit later)
August 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Also, yet again, this argument shows why governments need to be out of the marriage business. Let churches marry, or refuse to marry, whomever they choose. That’s consistent with the 1st Amendment’s free-expression clause. But everyone seeking state sanction for their union and all the many civic benefits that sanction conveys (the right to visit your significant other in the hospital, to name just one) needs to have the same rights. That’s consistent with the establishment clause, not to mention the 14th Amendment.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Card did not like the judges having unlimited power
to throw out laws based on personal choiceinterpret laws in the context of the California constitution, which offered no basis whatever for forbidding gay people to marry.Fixed that for you.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Great post, minor complaint. Your list of things that are gay about heterosexual marriage:
“It expects everyone to dress well and be on time. ”
I’ll give you the expect everyone to dress well, but there is absolutely NOTHING gay about being on time. When I used to plan events we often would plan them on “gay time” if it was a GLBT function, IE schedule everything 15-30 minutes later than what is advertised because the gays are “fashionably late” to everything, all the time.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
from Urbandictionary.com:
Emo Kid #1: “OMG, im lyk so depressed. im gona scratch my arm with a safety pin”
Emo Kid #2: “aw, emo buddy, lets be emo cutters 2geva!”
August 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Quick thought on the whole “gay marriage doesn’t effect people” angle. Its naive to think that anything in this country happens in vacuum. Of course it will affect straight people. For example, as Card mentions it could become part of school curriculum, meaning it will be taught to young children who might be told by their parents that homosexuality is immoral. These children are immediately put into a hostile situation, where their school is teaching them things directly in contract with the lessons they learn at home. Now, just because it will affect others does not mean the law shouldn’t change. It sure as hell affects gay people if it doesn’t, so either way someone somewhere is probably going to face shit because of whatever happens. But don’t brush off the oppositions argument with a fallacial response that it won’t do anything to them.
Second, for all the negative comments about how mean the religious folks are, there have been like 2 comments from a religious perspective against homosexuality and like 40 comments from others ripping into religious beliefs, religious people and theology in general. Hard to see why I should hate religion so much in the face of that kind of hostility.
Lastly, some have asked why comment on a humor article? Because its fun. This is a blog that is meant to get responses from its readers. If I wanted to read boring shit while at work, I would read and then comment on CNN’s page. But I would rather laugh at funny articles (which this was) and then read a comments page that is equally hilarious but also has some good thoughts.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Fantastic still wants to marry his sister, even though she’s already had 2 of my illegitimate children?
Very nice and well articulated rant about homophobia in general.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Emo alert!
August 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Prejudice against a writer’s WORK because of his (anachronistic) beliefs is good prejudice?
The point is you can do whatever you want with your body, but you have no right to force anyone to accept what you are doing. It’s my opinion and just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean i am a bad or stupid person.
i.e. i like to cut myself. i am an adult, it’s my body, i don’t hurt anybody, and i find pleasure in doing it. If you think i am pervert that makes you bad persons or not? Do i have the right to call you stupid if you don’t understand my passion?
August 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
For those who didn’t click on the link, this is what Orson Scott Card said:
“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.”
Those are pretty strong words and could venture on treason. I find it odd how it’s so freakin’ important to some people that gays not get married. NO ONE is telling you that just because gay people marry that your marriage is invalid. NO ONE is forcing you to “like” or “accept” gay marriage. All it is doing is giving gay people the same opportunities and rights that are offered to heterosexuals. I think that any group that is denied the same freedoms and opportunities based on sex, color, sexual orientation blah blah blah should not have to pay taxes. Yep, all you gays out there are required by law to pay taxes but not get to benefit from them! Wait until they say that all people with blue eyes will not be allowed to drive and all blondes will no longer be allowed to hold jobs. How stupid does that sound? About as stupid as not letting 2 people get married.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I love you, greengoddess, and I would even if you hadn’t also said I was right on the other blog.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Oh I almost forgot, always love your articles Swaim.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Fantastic post!!! I am going to marry my sister! Nobody can stand between true love and who is anybody to tell me its ‘immoral’ or ‘wrong’ In a hunder years my great grand children will also be playing banjo on Card’s grave!
August 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I’m a firm believer that people are entitled to their beliefs, but with one exception: If their beliefs adversely effect someone else. Such is the situation with gay marriage. Two people of the same gender choosing to get married doesn’t hurt anyone else, but people deciding that gay marriage is wrong directly hurts those who choose to do so. I may not enjoy the thought of two men having sex with each other, but that hardly means I feel those two men deserve to be mistreated and discriminated against for doing so. There are plenty of things people do behind closed doors that I think we can all agree on, are fucking disgusting. But with a few exceptions (bestiality, pedophilia, or anything else that hurts another), that is their right.
Back to the whole gay thing real quick. I may not be gay, but I am friends with several, and when I was in high school we had a relatively high number of gay students. I’ve seen that people that are against that type of lifestyle tend to be pretty hostile. At a store I used to work for, my manager was (quite obviously) gay. Every time a customer wasn’t happy with the situation, they demanded to speak to my manager. He would come out, and repeat exactly what I had (what we can and cannot do for them, or else we will get fired), and their response would ALWAYS (considering the only customers to speak to him were the loud angry ones) throw all rationality out the window, and attack him for being gay. He was often told to “get his gay ass out of (their) face” or once or twice he was told to “Go spread (his) AIDS somewhere else.” While these people aren’t starting a revolution or forming lynch mobs and heading around town, these are incredibly hostile reactions, especially considering we were in a retail store, trying to conduct business.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The comments here from the Christians are just tickling the shit out of me. And who the fuck is Orson Scott Card? Is that his real name? His parents must have been enormous douchebags to name him that.
And who cares if gay people get married? And how is that like someone marrying a goldfish?
And seriously, more dick jokes, more funny, more mind exploding science.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
While I agree that Mr. Scott Card’s statements are rather unforgivable, I don’t think it follows that one should forever abstain from reading his work. Plenty of authors whose views are questionable by today’s liberal standards are regarded as among the great figures of literature. I read the Ender’s Game series a number of years ago and found it fantastic, and I see no reason not to reread the books in light of the author’s bigotry. I certainly won’t buy his books, but that’s why we have libraries. Don’t deny yourself the pleasure of reading his books just because he happens to be an asshole. Overreaction is a dangerous thing.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
While I agree that Mr. Scott Card’s statements are rather unforgivable, I don’t think it follows that one should forever abstain from reading his work. Plenty of author’s whose views are questionable by today’s liberal standards are regarded as among the great figures of literature. I read the Ender’s Game series a number of years ago and found it fantastic, and I see no reason not to reread the books in light of the author’s bigotry. I certainly won’t buy his books, but that’s why we have libraries. Don’t deny yourself the pleasure of reading his books just because he happens to be an asshole. Overreaction is a dangerous thing.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Thank you for that, Wiglaf!
August 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
@Patrick
There are hundreds of cases of gays and lesbians getting the shit beat the fuck out of them every year just for being gay/lesbian. And yes, this is a civil rights issue. Being homosexual is just as much NOT a choice as being black. I wish there were no more battles to be fought. Wouldn’t that be nice.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Mike, as I said earlier I don’t care what people do with their happy places. However, I’m also pretty sure you can pick what you want to stick your wee-wee in. I’ve had offers from all sorts of people, and by your logic (though I happen to be straight) I had no choice in the matter. I happen to have turned down the guys for the record (not that it should matter), but I’m pretty sure it was a choice. Just like paper or plastic, cash or credit, mayo or mustard, spit or swallow, pull out or leave it in, life is a great big series of choices. Otherwise you’re equating liking one set of genitalia over another to having a mental defect. Which may be your point, I guess, but I disagree.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Intolerating homosexuals is wrong, but intolerating homophobes to the same extent that they intolerate homosexuals doesn’t make you any better. In fact I could almost say that you only make the homophobes look good by doing that.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
There’s your “Dick” joke.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front of the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks directly behind him.
Since St. Peter was standing right next to the man, he asked him, “What are all those clocks?”
“Those are Lie-Clocks,” St. Peter said. “Everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock move.”
“Oh”, said the man. “Whose clock is that?”
“That’s Mother Teresa’s”, replied St. Peter. “The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.”
“Incredible”, said the man. “And whose clock is that one?”
“That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock,” St. Peter said. “The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.”
“Where’s Dick Cheney’s clock?” asked the man.
“Dick Cheney’s clock is in Jesus’ office,” said St. Peter. “He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”
August 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“It’s scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice.”
Liar, Liar, tight pants on fire! There is no such proof.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Less politics! Less religion! More poop! More dick jokes!
August 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Great article.
Some of you are stating that “tolerance goes both ways” because the “opinion” that homosexuality is a (wrong) choice goes against what you believe. Here’s the problem with that - It’s scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice. There is a fundamental difference in brain structure between gays/lesbians and their repective sexes.
It’s like saying that two people shouldn’t be married because they both have the same eye color. There’s no choice involved.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Great article. I also loved Card’s books as a kid, and I’m sad to see that the author of such awesome books (Bean=greatest little boy EVAR) could be such a moron. Thanks for the heads up, and I guess I’m just going to stop holding out hopes for another “Shadow” book, because apparently it’ll be filled with homophobia and stupidity. Oh well.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
…and should you be allowed to vote if you have hang ups?
August 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“its resulting laws against hate crimes”
No. It’s laws against assault and battery and murder. What’s your hang up?
August 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
excellent write. the hang-ups of any religious institution have no place in the political/social issues of a diverse democratic (well, we try don’t we?) republic based in principles of freedom of speech, devotion, and expression.
so whether or not christianity’s standpoint on gay marriage is hypocritical or not (see above comment on catholic gay marriages) or whether homosexuality was a staple in many ancient societies, especially those we base our civilization on, such as ancient greece (they had the concept of the Erastes and the Eromenos, the lover and the beloved, the latter of which was typically between 14 and 20 yrs old. also the Sacred Band of Thebes. now that’s kickass), the homosexual wedding ceremonies in dynastic China; is fucking irrelevent, no matter how fun it is to spout historically.
Irrelevent.
whether or not two men getting married or ellen degneres doing the same would impact the life of james dobson or your neighborhood bigot, also irrelevent.
it is discrimination based on an aribitrary and irrational predjudice. it defeats the concept and spirit of the civil rights act.
and also……………..in response to the comment above on how one shouldn’t compare the struggle for gay rights with the Civil Rights Movement because you don’t see public lynchings of homosexuals etc, that would be incorrect. thousands of openly gay men and women are the victims of hate crimes every year. like Lawrence King, an eigth grader who was beaten and shot by some of his classmates back in february for being openly gay. or Brandon Teena, or countless and nameless others who have been killed out of a homophobia just as ignorant and dangerous as racism.
i’m not saying the civil rights movement didn’t face more direct violence than this current struggle, but the only reason we are not faced by those exact things is because of the civil rights movement and its resulting laws against hate crimes. thanks to those brave fighters for equality we can fight the hate and irrational predjudice with words, with reason, rather than violence.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Bestiality? Oh, if Kinky Kelly could hear you!
We like to call it: interspecies erotica!
LOL
August 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I just thought it would be nice to throw something positive in there, amidst all the shouts of “homophobe” and “standing at the very peak of Mt. Stupid.”
August 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I think Card is seeking to be McCain’s running mate with that “mixed bag.” He’d be perfect. Plus, McCain and Card both love media attention!
Look at me!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I fucking love you, Michael Swaim. Just for the record.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“You didn’t let your lack of understanding of the concept of “Consenting Adults” get in the way of making what is perhaps the most insulting and degrading comment you could possibly think of.”
I can probably think up something more insulting and degrading, but I’d rather read a story about celebrities pooping…or wieners for that matter.
BTW, everyone’s a bigot these days. The term has truly lost its meaning.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
After reading this article, I looked up Orson Scott Card on Wikipedia, and I was rather shocked. Like Heinlein, his political beliefs are a mixed bag, a twisted puzzle of opposing pieces that don’t seem like they should fit together. He calls himself a democrat, and says “The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism.” And he has endorsed children of illegal immigrants receiving in-state college tuition rates. He rips into the republicans for “making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past”. But he is a major proponent of the war on terror, saying:
“There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that’s the War on Terror… I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America’s role as a light among nations. But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war.” And he loves Fox news.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Kitsonas, congratulations, you stand at the very peak of Mt. Stupid. While the thin air at the peak makes it difficult for oxygen to reach your brain, I commend you on your ability to form coherent sentences, regardless of how much of an idiot they make you seem to be. You are truly to be revered as King of the Morons, a retard among the merely uninformed, and true champion of the stretched comparison.
I mean, to make the leap from homosexuality straight to man on goldfish love - a true tour de force of stupidity. Sure, many other bigots have done it in the past, but you put your point so eloquently, and still managed to completely miss the point. You didn’t let your lack of understanding of the concept of “Consenting Adults” get in the way of making what is perhaps the most insulting and degrading comment you could possibly think of. While others would have taken the all to easy route of using the rational parts of their brain to realize there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and bestiality, you went the extra mile to really dig deep into the issue to come up with a truly useless and odious comparison. Congratulations again!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
lol Fish….
August 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
@zizon: The government’s entire reasoning for everything is simple: “What will get me re-elected?” or “What won’t get me NOT re-elected?” to be more accurate. There are millions of people who don’t understand what religious freedom really means or why it’s important, because we’re spoiled. And so, those people find it perfectly acceptable to force their own religious beliefs on other people, via their votes. The politicians themselves can go on and on about “the sanctity of marriage” and how we’re historically attached to “one nation under God” all they want, but the truth is it’s about votes and dollars, both of which churches can bring in millions of. From a legal standpoint, we’d have no “under god” in the pledge and legal gay marriage the second anyone asked for both. Taking out bias and unconstitutional religious influence leaves neither argument with a single leg to stand on.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“It’s the fucking writer’s opinion, and supposed to be funny.”
Wait. Swaim’s article was supposed to be funny?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Unlike most of my family, I fully support legalizing gay marriage. My response to anyone going off about the “gays ruining morality”, or something to that effect: They’re probably not trying to fuck you, so get over it. You’ll be much happier.
I find it sad that in some places in the world two people of opposite genders who hate each other have more of a right to marry than two people who love each other but happen to have the same bits.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
And this is why I won’t go into churches anymore, half of me thinks I might burst into flames upon entering the door. *walks off to do more important things, like making out with other chicks and the lot*
August 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I think the general problem with these arguments is when people try and provide substantiation to them. (i.e. “Mormons are illogical)
I think the baseline for decisions like this should be “Are they hurting anyone with their decision.” Homosexuals aren’t hurting anyone by being married, so let ‘em do it. No harm done.
Fantastic article, by the way, Swaim.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
My bad, quote fix: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle
Now let me have it, you sanctimonious pricks.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
True love has no limits:
man + woman
man + man
woman +woman
man + goldfish
Can someone marry his goldfish?
What if he loves it very very much?
They are both God’s creatures after all and you certainly can’t judge someones feelings just because they are different than yours!
Gay people can live together and *legally* be considered a couple. But trying to justify gay marriage through religion it’s sacrilege.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The diggs speak for themselves so I don’t have to.
Mike, we await the celeb pooping article.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Panzer: My fucking thoughts exactly… People who take comedy sites seriously need to be hit with something blunt (or limp). Jesus, people. It’s the fucking writer’s opinion, and supposed to be funny. Don’t computer dorks have something better to do (like go and by some baby oil for all the chafing from the lack-of-pussy-getting induced masturbation)? Hey, fucksticks, if you don’t like it, don’t fucking read it. And if you don’t like the fucking opinion stated, don’t take it on as your own. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to listen to another’s views without feeling obligated to take them on as their own.” -Atistotle
August 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Swaim, I love you so much. But you’re not allowed to be creeped out by that.
Great blog!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Okay.. First of all, I don’t agree with Card’s views on this subject at all.
Now that that’s out of the way.. I have to say, anybody who is saying that they can no longer appreciate his work because of this is being RIDICULOUS. Does that mean that any time an artist that you like has a belief that you disagree with you’re going to stop appreciating them too? Do you realize the flaw in this? You know.. that it’s almost CERTAIN that there are artists out there right now that you love that have beliefs that would probably make you sick, and even some that have done* horrible things. I don’t have to dig up examples, you can probably think of some on your own easily enough.
Look, the man’s ideas on this subject are messed up, and they don’t really surprise me at all.. But his books should be judged on their own merit. I really hope everyone can understand why that is so important.
* Not written about, or believed in, but actually DONE.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Do I dare to eat a peach?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It has everything to do with the country, city, and community you live in–all of those relate to you. He doesn’t want his children to live in a society where it’s “ok to be gay”.
Yeah, and I don’t want my daughter living in a society where it’s “OK to post stupid comments”
Andy, are you being serious? Is that actually considered an argument against homosexual marriage?
“Because I’m stupid, I don’t want my son to see the gays, as he might get ideas.”
Well, if that is someone’s viewpoint, then all the more power to them, but too fucking bad. There are all kinds of things that I wish weren’t around in our society, but I wouldn’t suggest banning any of them just to spare my sensibilities or make it easier to raise my children. If you live next to a gay couple, then tell your kids that they’re going to hell if you’re so inclined, just like I’ll tell my daughter that the 3 churches within a block of my house are where people go to worship their imaginary friend.
You should be allowed to do what you want as long as it doesn’t harm another, non-consenting person (or animal I suppose) - and NO, making some idiot squirm a bit when he sees Vince and Vance holding hands doesn’t fucking count as harm.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I’ll never read Card again either. I’m revolting against him and will bring down the institution that is Card. The part of his column that really gets me is where he talks about judges making new laws, etc. Apparently, the guy has no idea how our government works because judges have always ruled on laws passed by the citizens in order to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Our democracy is not based on the notion that “majority rules,” nor should it be. It’s based on the idea that everyone is free, no matter who they are or what they believe in.
Oh, and to the guy up there who said that gays weren’t being killed for trying to get married, that may be true, but they are certainly being killed for just being gay. Just like not every black person who was murdered was done so for trying to get married. You’re confusing your analogies.
PS - So, Michael, congratulations. I’m sure he’s a very sweet guy and you two will live happily ever after.
ZING!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
LOVE Orson Scott Card’s work. HATE his bigotry and intolerance. It’s the same thing with me and T.S. Eliot; dude, “Prufrock” kicks ass, but you’re still an anti-Semite.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
who cares what he thinks? he could be killing babies and eating them, and it wouldn’t detract from the fact that he has written some amazing books!
most of the artists/writers/musicians who have created stunningly beautiful works of art throughout the centuries have been drunken racist misogynistic cretins, and you rarely hearing anyone complaining about them!
Ender’s Game, and Speaker for the Dead are two great works of literary art. so what if the author has an opinion you disagree with?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I just want to make it clear that I am still in favour of overthrowing the government.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What!?! Battleship Earth was a work of art - the epitome of the sci-fi genre!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Orson Scott Card? Being a self-important, self-righteous asshat? Why am I not surprised?
August 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Accoch63, I think most people appreciate your honesty. I recently watched a documentary about an Albertan pastor (Alberta is our version of Texas - lots of oil and cowboys, largely populated with religious fundamentalists) who spent a few weeks with the members of a “gay” congregation. While he believes homosexuality is a sin, he accepted them as God’s creatures. He disagrees with their lifestyle, but recognizes that they have a right to live it.
You don’t have to agree with someone to recognize they have a right to live their life. As an atheist I would prefer that religion was relegated to the dustbin of history, but I would never suggest that it should be banned, or that my rights were being infringed by the church down the street from me.
The goal shouldn’t be to force others to not believe what they want (which never works), but rather to slowly work towards making those “intolerant” or “hateful” views socially unacceptable to most everyone. Organizations like the KKK weren’t banned, but you won’t see anyone in their right mind proclaiming their membership these days.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
This whole post is gay. Anyone who pays any attention to that literary hack in the first place is gay. There are far superior sci-fi authors out there and none of them are Mormon and I’m pretty sure they don’t have any problems with homos getting hitched.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“the universal historical trend ”
- There’s no such thing as a universal historical trend, except whatever ideology we choose to project on it. If you’re so convinced you’re going to win, why are you ranting?
Incidentally Mormonism is invulnerable to the the whole “what biblical verse are you basing this on” critique, since while recognising the Bible as scripture, does not believe it to be sufficient and believes in continuing revelation. And marriage forms a significant part of Mormon theology.
Also incidentally, I’m a Mormon who dislikes Orson Scott Card’s books.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Crap. Reading the above replies (which I did not do before), I realize that I must write something a little more substantial now (damnit). Let me start off by saying that I wear the title “Secular Humanist / Atheist” with a great deal of pride (mostly because I live in the south, and I love to see the faces of those I tell that to). I consider myself a breed apart. For one, I’m don’t invest in “peace” or the whole “logical” thing. I like my guns, and I like a good fist fight now and again. That said, I like to throw my weight around, and I believe in “might makes right.” Should it come down to it, I’m all for overthrowing the government (as our forefathers set us up for, should the need arise), except in my case, it would be against a religious fascist government that has no qualms about making a person “disappear,” or telling me where I can’t stick Mr. Winky (just to let you all know, I’m deeply in love with an 8″ deep can of spam right now, and I’m thinking about giving my vows). To scare all of you right wingers even more, I’ve procreated out of marriage with two lesbian couples (and produces two beautiful baby girls)! Mwahahahahahahahaha! They shall have my militant secular humanist values! Take that, evangelicals and mormons!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Swaim brother I too read the Speaker and wept. I will join your boycot!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Uh, DrunkdMonkey, are you saying that Swaim has Compassion, Humility, and Grace? Grace?!? Did you SEE his rap video?
August 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“It has absolutely NOTHING to do with you!”
It has everything to do with the country, city, and community you live in–all of those relate to you. He doesn’t want his children to live in a society where it’s “ok to be gay”.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I agree with Hexada. This needs to stop! Someone needs to light those tight pants on fire!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
@AtomicSpike
agree with you great point
August 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Why is it that when a person with a steadfast religious standpoint on this issue, or a ton of others, regardless of said religion (i.e. Mormon, Catholic, Christian, Muslim), they always seem to be lacking the traits of a truely religious or spirtual person? Namely Compassion, Humility, & Grace.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Above you stated that the bible states that I can stone my children, but I don’t see you cleaning out your gun. I’m just here to let you know that I do indeed shoot my ungrateful children frequently (in easily concealable places, and with a .22), simply to let them know the correct order of the universe (me…everyone else!).
August 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
First they want to get married. Next thing you know they’ll want to ride our busses, drink from our water fountains, play our football, and sleep with our women. “Where da straight womenz at? Where da straight womenz at?” Seriously, fuck those gays. Those gays think they’re so great with their tight pants and tiny cars and their pop music.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Right on Swaim.
Why are people still putting their feet down about gay marriage? Let em get married already.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It seems like a lot is being made of one sentence at the end of Card’s (much longer) op-ed piece. In his original piece, Card defines (and defends) his point much more strongly than a taken-out-of-context sentence would imply. And even that quote doesn’t seem to be a call to arms - “Give me liberty or give me death” it ain’t.
Also, being rich isn’t a deadly sin. Greed is a deadly sin.
So yeah.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Agree with The B Says, and want to add something.
Everybody saying that Swaim isn’t being tolerant and that it “works both ways” should look at this from a different viewpoint, I think. What you’re all referring to is moral relativity. A society will never make progress on a foundation of moral relativity. I just feel that as intelligent beings, we have to draw a line somewhere. Maybe I’m wrong but this “being tolerant of everybody, despite what viewpoints they have/support” business seems pretty dangerous.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The best things about mormons are the girls are super hot.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
A nice article.
Being a Protestant Christian, I am opposed to homosexuality.
HOWEVER, unlike most other Christians these days, I do not believe that homosexuality is the absolute worst sin on the face of the planet. I also do not see why we need to hate gays any more than we should hate people who cheat on their taxes.
People like me have a word for people like Orson Scott Card. Ready? It’s COUNTERACTIVE.
Nothing ruins our message more than hateful people like him who pretend to stand for our beliefs. So, don’t hate on the evangelicals; odds are that the real ones can’t stand guys like Card any more than you can.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Just thought I’d mention, it’s not that God hates gays. God loves everyone, gays, rapists, murderers, jerks at the coffee shop, EVERYONE. It’s that being gay, or a rapist, or a murderer, or a jerk, is a slap in God’s face. It’s breaking his rules. He’ll always forgive us, but c’mon, why be an ass? He’s a great guy, and he deserves a bit more respect.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Men, I loved ender’s game, I read it after I knew Clarke’s and Asimov’s work very well and even then I thought it was…well, great piece of art.
I can´t believe the writer is such an idiot.
That book is ruined for me.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Who cares if he does hate gay marriage?? By the way Over-Camp gays are the most irritating half-witted and vain creatures on the planet.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
In response to Yellow Card, PUN!,
I think he was trying to make the point that while it’s not your “fault” you’re gay, look! you can still be a productive member of society and marry a woman! You’re not totally useless at all!! So don’t go out and try to change marriage, or else we’ll all die.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Sometimes a good long rant is a positive thing. I liked this one.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The (few) people complaining that Swaim isn’t tolerant of others because he vehemently disagrees with Card are completely off base - this is the basis of any free society. You’re not being intolerant of someone else’s viewpoint by writing a scathing polemic against it. This is the way it’s supposed to work. Card is entitled to his own (stupid) view, and Swaim is entitled to make fun of him for it - what would make it wrong is if Swaim was to load up a sniper rifle and shoot Card for what he believes in. This argument just doesn’t make sense to me - saying someone is intolerant because they disagree with someone else is a specious argument, and seems like the last resort of someone who knows their view is indefensible.
Besides, it’s not really a matter of intolerance anyway - everyone is intolerant of something. Most gays don’t really care if fundamentalist Christians like them or not anyway, they just want the freedom to live their lives and get married like everyone else. This really shouldn’t be a religious issue, and those people that say their rights are being damaged by allowing gays to get married are simply stupid. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with you! They aren’t forcing YOU to become a homosexual, so leave it alone.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’ve encountered a number of Mormons, and found most of them (IN MY EXPERIENCE) have similar characteristics. They tend to be relatively successful, pleasant, hard-working, pretty smart in terms of raw intelligence and absolutely gullible as fuck. Not just by definition (I.E. anyone who can read the Book of Mormon and actually believe it) but in the whole “WWE wrestling is real” kind of way too. I like them as people, but I sure wouldn’t take anything one of them said or wrote so seriously I’d foam at the mouth about how inherently evil they are. I agree Gay people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to with their genitalia and blow way too much money on a day that marks the end of their free life just like straight people if they want to, but methinks you doth protest too much.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I’m not going to read through every single post to see if anybody pointed this out already. but here goes.
Orson Scott Card was always a spittle-emitting facist. Reread the Ender trilogy. it’s there. But also, he’s not the only one. Other great fantasy writer facists include C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling. Beautiful books are often produced by ugly values.
Deal with it, and work form the text.
P.S. the picture of Jesus puking up the fish was hilarious on so many levels.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
There are people who want ‘one nation under god’ taken away from the pledge of allegiance. There are people who want to ban gay rights due to religious beliefs. ??? What’s the government’s reasoning on why they shouldn’t gain rights?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
so, you are basically telling me that the book that had the second (only to Maniac Magee) biggest impact on me with regards to acceptance, love, having an open mind, understanding others and understanding myself (as a gay man) was written by a bigoted, close-minded, hateful piece of shit asshole! that’s just great.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:55 am
What took you so long to realize he was a douche? Most of the sf community realized it years ago.
He wrote one great book a very long time ago. What he has written since then has been garbage.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Except for gangsta rappers.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Hmm, frankly, I didn´t like Ender´s Game. I found it predictable, full of cliches (and stereotypes), and sassy. I´d sort of class it along with “The Goonies” and “Three Little Ninjas” (but closer to Three Little Ninjas, and yes, I mean it). To me it felt like just another teen pulp novel. Matter of tastes, I guess.
Speaking of tastes and everyone being entitled to his or her own opinion: does that really include trying to rouse people for a coup de etat? Because that´s what Orson Scott Card is suggesting. I´m surprised he didn´t get a lawsuit out of that. Freedom of speech does not cover instigation to criminal behavior.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
As for peopel trying to paint this purely as a ‘checks and balances issue’ should read the articles that link off from the one Swaim posted. One of them equates homosexuality exactly with sin and the other one suggests 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.” so homosexuals can LEGALLY married. Way to miss the point, Orson.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
louie shut up. he’s already said thats not what he was implying, and your just proving to everyone you’re no older than 11.
And swaim tolerance works both ways, as its been said.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am
@Promus: Swaim didn’t say anything about being tolerant. In fact he flat out said that a guy’s opinions are obhorrent and backward. However didn’t advocate kicking his ass or getting the government to stop his opinions and did not even have it change his opinion on the guy’s writing so there isn’t even anything wrong with what he has to say about Card’s stupid opinions.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I’ll be expecting you to follow through on that article about a celebrity pooping themselves.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Swaim, your awesome. Even though I’ve never read an Orson Scott Card book. It’s always so crushing when someone you admire makes an ass of themselves.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Women can vote?!?!? This is horrible.
By the way, is that a “badass” picture of “Jesus” vomiting fish?
I’m not sure what your point is Swaim, but you sure are angry. You sound like a spurned lover. hmmm….
August 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
KITH weigh in on this important issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgF5SxGaCzc
August 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I actually have never read any of Card’s books. I have read a few of his stories and didn’t like them. A friend who does like them and is gay forwarded an article that card had written about the California State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the State’s proposition and allow gay marriages. Card was not against gay marriage in the article I read (although there certainly could be others). What Card was against was the judges deciding to overturn the election because they didn’t like it. Imagine the power that judges now have to change anything that doesn’t fit their tiny world view. Do away with all the presidents, governors, senators, congress, mayors, everybody but judges. No need for anybody else. Judges get to make new laws instead of the legislature. Judges get to carry out the laws instead of the executive branches.
Trust the judges. If they don’t like you, then the judges will execute you. They will make your business illegal. Rezone your property. Evict you. Whatever.
Card did not like the judges having unlimited power to throw out laws based on personal choice, not legal rulings or history or constitutionality or the vote of the people. I guess I don’t either. A judge could decide today that freeing the slaves was wrong or giving women the vote was a mistake. A judge could decide that all men should be in jail since they commit the majority of crimes, so throw the whole group in jail to protect the rest.
Why isn’t everyone against unfairness?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
@Artifact Jack - You’re right - he’s not inciting revolution.
But I don’t recommend reading his article. It’s long, repetitive, and dogmatic. It’s not his best writing, and certainly supports the thought that he may not be particularly smart. While he does occasionally make some good points, he also makes a lot of unsupported assertions, includes an unrelated aside about personal property, and his primary point (regarding the biological support for male/female marriage) is not supported by facts, theory, logic, or any combination of the three.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Promus, hatred isn’t an opinion, nor is it a political philosophy.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Well said, Swaim, well said
August 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Swaim…you’re an asshole. “Tolerance” should work both ways, including tolerance for opinions which might happen to differ from your own.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Fucking fantastic work. Nicely done.
Oh and Patrick, do you really want people to start listing all of the people who have been killed for being gay? Or looking gay? Or sounding gay?
Srrsly fucktard. IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE YOU INCREDIBLE FUCKING COCK.
Holy shit you’re stupid. I hope somebody punches you in the stomach for being so stupid.
If someones religion says gays can’t get married, that’s fine, gays won’t get married, IN THAT RELIGION.
Hey jews aren’t supposed to eat pork, is it ok if I do? I mean, I’m violating one of their religious laws right? And aren’t all religious laws supposed to be forced on everyone everywhere all of the time?
God. You’re fucking retarded. I hope your mother rapes you with you best friend from childhoods severed head, right up your ass.
Jesus fuck Patrick, really? Fucking really?
Also like Ayn Rand said “I’m a fucking greedy, evil cunt who wants to watch the world suffer.”
August 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
There’s a difference between respecting the fact that people have their say and allow them to say what they want, and allowing people to believe everything they say is right. It appears a lot of people confuse the two in favour of the latter. A guy can walk up to me and say he thinks my shoes are ugly, and hey, that’d be his opinion. But if his opinion is based on the fact that my shoes are red, when they are plainly blue, I’m sure everyone would agree that his stance is fundamentally and basally flawed and shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
With theistic religion so obviously being based on the falsehoods that it is, I would think any homophobic stance which has its bases in religion doesn’t deserve any support from any quarter, especially when the more forthright and sensible-minded of us have come to realise homosexuality is as natural as day following night and flowers blooming. Haven’t we got enough to fight about already without having one more pointless battle based on the sentiments of a blinkered and ill-educated few? Homosexuality is natural, it should be left alone, let’s all go back to reducing our carbon footprint and saving our recessing economy and stop affording buffoons like Orson Card such unnecessary attention.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
People who debate and argue comedy articles as serious fact will one day be studied in labs.
Seriously, imagine the anthropolical benefits of studying someone who’s brain has no humour receptors.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Oh Swaim, you set yourself up for this one. You actually start the article by assuring us Mormons aren’t logical, implying you are. You then go on to say that being anti-gay marriage, even in a peaceful way such as writing about one’s beliefs, is equivalent to being a slaveowner, a member of the KKK, or part of Apartheid. You do realize they actualy killed people in real life, right? Not just wrote about something they disagreed with? No doubt Card’s logic in his article is pretty retarded, but your’s is seriously no better. To be fair to Card, he doesn’t even say he wants to rise up, just asks the hypothetical question about when certain people (maybe retarded people, but thats not the point) will feel forced to rise against their own government if that government continually forces new laws on them that they are againts. Read the quote in the context of the article and that is clearly what he is saying. To say that makes him the equal of mass murderes, people who sold over people for money, and those who participate in ethnic cleansing is ridiculous to the point of being dangerous. Sorry Swaim. Still, I did laugh, so thanks. And I will go on reading Ender’s Game, just like I will continue listening to John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ even though it proposes a world that literally nobody would want to live in.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Patrick, you’re comparing denying people their right to get married to denying people their right to use pennies. Those aren’t the same thing.
And you’re quoting Ayn Rand? You do realise Ayn Rand is the queen of fashionable non-conformity and the general pretentious college type thinking you’re pretending to be against.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I must agree with the writer. I was an avid fan of OSC’s until this announcement. I will never read any of his works again, I will never support him again. It is too bad that such an amazing individual with great skills is such a homophobe.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Very nice man, comedy in its best capacity.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
good job
thats exactly how ive always thought of it
and enders game was required reading for my school in 6th grade
good thing i skipped it
August 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I am speechless. Swaim, you are like the coolest person forever. D: Kudos.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Sorry, Elliot. I’ve read the Cookbook - I wouldn’t trust anything it says. I would, though, trust my ten years of martial arts training. You can brash someone’s nose into their brain, but the way it’s depicted in the book is retarded.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
not really interested in this debate, but for a great bible verse:
Ezekial 23:20 “And there she lusted after her lovers who’s genitals were like that of horses and whos emissions were like that of donkeys.”
August 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
AtomicSpike - no. Just pointing out how absurdly reactionary kids are being. Like when K-Fed decided he needed a cause to tout, so he started making appearances to speak out against the government plan to end the use of pennies.
All these spoiled children whose liberalism comes not from a desire to help out the downtrodden, but to heighten their own vanity.
Like Ayn Rand said - There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:40 am
At the risk of being slaughtered I’m going to disagree and just like you said, “Let’s agree to disagree”. I believe everyone should be able to have their own beliefs and think what they want but why is it so bad if someone disagrees with your viewpoint? The level of intolerance from those who are the loudest is extreme, especially on the internet. I wonder if its possible to disagree with someone nowadays without being yelled at, insulted or beat up. Intolerance goes both ways and I may not view being homosexual the same way as someone who is homosexual but does that make me bad? According to this article I guess it does. I’ve never thought about going up to someone who was homosexual and throwing out insults. I simply don’t want to follow that lifestyle. On the other side of the coin, is it OK for me to be heterosexual? Am I not allowed to make that choice? I think what Orson Scott Card did is ridiculous and just plain stupid but just as much as you have the right to express your opinion so does he (I’m agreeing to disagree). Instead of placing a person and their viewpoint under some general group of people why don’t you look at it as one of their opinions among many. Generalization of a group is probably the most dangerous way of thinking and I believe sparks the most intense bigotry from both sides of this opinion. I don’t smoke but my wife does. I don’t believe smoking is good for her, but I still love her. I’ve worked with a lot of AIDS patients whether they were homosexual or not. In the end, when the end really does come, they just need someone to be around when they die. In the end, aside from beliefs, its a human life whether you disagree with them or not. I think if you have a belief why can’t you just be happy with it without feeling like you have to justify it to the world. If you really believe in a relationship why do you have to justify it?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Great article, sharing most of my opinions while still being funny. And anyone interested in a honorary lesbianship can apply for it with me.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Hang on a second - did everybody read the article?
He’s not inciting revolution. He’s stating his personal declaration to revolt. He made some points as to why other married individuals should join him, but his battle cry is mostly just for him.
I’m not defending his opinions. I’m indifferent. I just recommend reading the actual article.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
(Sir refers to Swaim)
August 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Fuck, now I have to burn my copy of Ender’s Game. And I never got around to reading Speaker for the Dead
But excellently written, sir.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
So Patrick, according to you, civil rights are only important if the people fighting for them are beaten and killed? I guess the gays have it easy then. Because as we all know no one has ever been beaten and killed just for being gay.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Great article, except Ender actually smashed Bonzos nose up into his brain which killed him, and if you don’t believe that could kill someone, you must not read the Anarchist Cookbook as much as I do
August 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Interesting post- and I’ve got to agree with many response that religion whouldn’t have anything to do with the laws of the government- but if that’s the case why do people keep using religion to defend homosexuality and paint Jesus as free loving hippie? There’s many sides to it and though he does have that character to reduce him to performing ollies is a little simplistic (although hilarious). My point is if religiong doesn’t have a place in the laws of government then quit attacking people’s religion and images of God at the same time- if that’s the issue then stay focused on it. The whole homosexual marriage issue is like a giant ADD conversation- no offense.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The right to marry, and be in a relationship with whom you choose, IS A FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT. The 14th and 5th Amendment fundamental liberties include the freedom to marry, or not to marry, someone of the same sex. “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….” (Loving v. Virginia). Furthermore, Civil rights are not meant only protect and prevent over discrimination. Civil liberties are also afforded to us to protect us from more subtle, the more common form, discrimination. Women and minorities are discriminated against everyday without being “strung up on trees.”
August 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
So, are you single sir?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
John Boswell was making crap up as he went along.
Yes, there are things called “rites of adelphopoiesis”, (Greek for the making of brothers). Boswell argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a “spiritual” and not a “carnal” one,
Even modern day “queer theorists” question Boswell’s conclusions, noting that “gayness” is a relatively modern social construct.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
At what point did you make the leap from
“Government expanding its power without the explicit permission of the people”
to
“SUXXOR ORSON SCOT CRD HATEZ THE GAYZ”
?
You are an imbecile, and I pray you don’t vote, ever, since someone could clearly get you to vote for stabbing youself in the crotch just by saying “you’re a meanie if you don’t do it.”
August 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
If I wanted an expert opinion on social policy the first person I would go to is a Mormon and the second is a science-fiction writer. Talk about open minded people persons, you can’t get better than that.
(disclosure: I’m a mormon science-fiction writer. I’m also devastatingly handsome, startingly virile and rich, byatch.)
August 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Orson Scott Card is dead to me, and I didn’t even know who he was before this article! Anyone that is morally opposed to two penises rubbing together (I’m assuming that’s how gay men have sex) is truly evil.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:04 am
It - is - NOT - okay to equate civil rights and gay marriage, hoss.
I know we all wish we could have been among the heroic forward-thinking activists who brought down Jim Crow, and so we pretend that by posting on a website a defense of letting homosexuals have a completely hollow religious-institution-based title slapped onto their relationship, we’re just the same as the guys who got the shit beat out of them for entering segregated diners. But get over yourself. Those battles were already fought. Thank your forebears for it. Don’t try to make your own glory to rival theirs.
Which gay couples are getting blasted out of churches with fire hoses for trying to get married? Which trees have homosexuals strung up on them with their noses cut off?
I’m not saying your view is right or wrong, but the tone is pretty self-righteous and inconsiderate to the people in the past who really stuck their necks out.
And your total certainty that suffrage trends are the end all be all are pretty far off base. If you want some sort of guide of what to expect in the “gay rights” battle, look at abortion. Sure, we got the law on the books for it back in the 70s, but that doesn’t mean it’s universally accepted. It’s as hotly debated now (Maybe more so) than it ever was before.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Gay marriage is EVIL - anything invented by the Catholic Church has to be, right?
What’s that? Oh, you didn’t know? The Catholic Church performed homosexual marriages from its creation (at which point it was the only Christian church, having beaten the rest of the Christian cults into oblivion to become the official religion of the Roman Empire) until the twelfth century, when they needed scapegoats to blame things like “plagues” on.
Here’s the kicker: Homosexual marriages were not legally-binding contracts the way that heterosexual marriages were (i.e., they could not be used to combine landholdings, kingdoms, etc.). Because of this, the church knew that homosexual marriages were always about love and were thus permitted inside churches, where God could bless the union. Heterosexual marriages, however, were often about land and money, and were thus held outside of the church, where the legal-but-not-holy heterosexual marriage would not offend the House of God.
In the mid-80’s, a professor at Yale discovered ancient liturgies for the ceremonies involved in same-sex unions. In another bizarrely ironic move, the Church is, of course, desperately trying to reinterpret these liturgies as not being what they obviously are. Suddenly the word of God isn’t quite as unquestionable as it is when it hates those darn queers.
This is also the reason I tend to giggle whenever someone mentions “traditional” marriage. As far as I’m concerned, you can’t get much more “traditional” than eleven hundred years of history stemming from the creation of the entire religion.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
So, it’s all right for you to detest Mormons. (I’m sorry, I’m sure some of your best friends are Mormon.)
I love that logic.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
August 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Swaim, you are awesome. His books aside, Orson Scott Card is an idiot of the highest degree. You rock.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’ve never heard of this author/retarded homophobe (Maybe his books don’t reach the bonny shores of Scotland) but if I happen to see any of his books anywhere I’ll let my hamster use them as nesting material.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Hell, I LOVED Ender’s Game when I read it. In fact, I was (SEE: Used to be before reading this) a big fan of his books. But this information really makes me doubt humanity a little more.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
If I wanted to read liberal political rants verbatim from four years ago I’d go to dailykos, not Cracked.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Also, it’s like T-Bone Burnett says in “Blinded by the Darkness.” Sin is dealt with by the laws of God, crime is dealt with by the laws of man. If homosexuality is a sin, let God deal with it as he sees fit, but it’s not the place of the laws of man.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
No! Don’t you all see? You’re becoming gay as we speak! You must take up arms and fight! Fight the gaiety, lest we all become of one homogeneous point of view and therefore have one less thing to hate about! Where will we be without hate? Specifically, where will Gladstone be without hate? He’ll go vex!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@Paddy,
What is a ‘honarary lesbian’? …… and how can I become one?
-SB
August 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Awesome article.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I liked the part about Jesus on doing an ollie.
I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I’m here to party.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Ender didn’t kill Bonzo by kicking him in the nuts. Bonzo was already dead by then. Ender headbutted him in the face, which pushed his nose into his brain.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Nicely done. As an honorary lesbian I think I can safely say you are welcome to live next to our raging drug orgies anytime. No pictures.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
well said, thanks for keeping it funny while touching on such a major issue/nonissue
August 11th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I, too, have come from a Mormon family and heritage, and I absolutely despise Orson Scott Card’s homophobia. Michael, thank you for writing this. I very much appreciate it.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Dude, you like Orson Scott Card?
That’s so gay. Seriously.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Swaim, knowing you’re going to get a fuckload torrent of shitstorm fuck (I think I made an old lady burst into flames somewhere) for touching on a hugely controversial theological issue, I have to say, you’re fucking awesome.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Someday gays will be able to own nice cars too.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I’ve read everything he’s written, from his 7th Son stuff, to his Earth Homecoming series. I’m surprised at his attitude, as in the Homecoming series one of the major characters spared by the Oversoul to repopulate the earth is gay, and marries a woman for to fit in and be biologically viable. Even though he’s with a woman, he’s still gay, and it’s explained as a biological condition, not a sinful choice. The tone towards that character was charitable and kind. Maybe he’s just drinking the mormon KoolAid these days.
A shame, regardless.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
You know what else is gay?
White.
White, tight t-shirts, white polyester suits those Queer Eye guys wear, white weddings!?
COINCIDENCE!!!???
August 11th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Coming from a Mormon family, I must say: I love you.
Awesome post.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
An excellent rant. Kudos.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Also, people are always saying their weddings are the happiest day of their lives. Know what another word for happy is?
GAY.