Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
(Orson Scott Card, Mormon Times, July 24, 2008)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfs
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 01:40 am (UTC)*sigh* I still think he's .... not worthy of my hard-earned semolians... for having thrown the meme to the wolves like that...
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 04:08 am (UTC)IMO he absolutely meant it exactly the way he said it.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 04:23 am (UTC)You voiced an opinion. You're entitled to it; however, it's at least somewhat at variance with the available facts.
*sigh* I kept beating this drum through the efforts to impeach both Clinton and Junior. As a man who grew up about 15 miles (and almost 200 years) from where I did once said, "Be always sure you're right–then go ahead." (Davy Crockett, 1834.) They tried to impeach Clinton for sex, when they should have impeached him for lying and giving our secrets to the Chinese. Everybody kept saying "Bad Bush, Bad Bush" and blaming him for Florida in 2000, when they should have (and theoretically still could) impeach him for lying to us about WMD's and torture. Now everybody wants to string Card up for treason; it's not treason, it's inciting a riot on both sides.
Get it right, people. This is why you fail.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 10:50 am (UTC)At no point does he say 'I'm not a homophobic bigot with minimal knowledge of biology and history, but other people who are may think..' - it's all me me me, we we we - there is a total assumption that the reader agrees with him and his world view.
My favourite bit is "Marriage['s] meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman" (my emphasis). Talk about redefining marriage...
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 05:49 pm (UTC)I wasn't responding to the original article, but to Elf's post; If the section quoted was quoted out of context, and you knew it was quoted out of context, then you should have said it in you response to Elf; I would have responded much differently to that...but I suppose that would have defeated the purpose of you hiding behind the door with your water balloon.
Either way, I am not your target, so "Get it right...THIS is how YOU fail.
Also: I am not in any way trying to "string Card up" for anything - I can, however, recognize an authentic voice when I hear it, and I said so. The rest of it is your own...product
This, too, is how you fail.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 04:54 am (UTC)Card promises to pull out a "current science research" in a future article about how homosexuality persists "despite conferring no reproductive advantage." I happen to know what that research says, in fact, I wrote the chapter on why homosexuality persists for the Counter-Creationism Handbook (buy it from Barnes and Noble! (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Counter-Creationism-Handbook/Mark-Isaak/e/9780520249264/?itm=1)) and here's the most important salient part: many of the individual characteristics that in combination give rise to homosexual ideation individually confer fabulous reproductive advantages to sexually segregated, polygamous, tribal cultures-- the ones we had from 50,000 BCE until the present. (Much like the way that the genes that cause sickle cell anemia in combination, give an advantage over disease in isolation.)
Card is an idiot.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 02:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 02:27 am (UTC)that statement alone can be used to destroy his argument fifty times over.
Way back when I read his books at all
Date: 2008-08-21 02:53 pm (UTC)When I get new< books from the library, I do think of it as supporting my favorite authors, because, when I like them, I often end up buying the books in question. I use the library as a pre-screening tool. I read so damned many books (7-10+/week when I'm in a reading mood) that I can't possibly afford to buy all the ones I want. Plus, the library does look at the pattern of requests and end up buying more books by those authors.
Maybe the fact that I, and those like me, don't read Card any more, will mean that my library system will ease back on buying the bozo's books. I know that there certainly don't seem to be numbers of each Card book in the shared system, which may be a good sign!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 03:28 pm (UTC)And yes, I did read the entire article through. I suppose I should consider myself full of the bad then that my spouse (yes, I'm a she and he's a he, I dislike husband and wife for a lot of reasons) were together for 11 years before we decided to get the paperwork done. And we did that because we weren't interested in finding out later that we were candidates for a divorce.
And, of course, that we've decided to not have children is all of the bad as well, because it makes our relationship that less meaningful.
Perhaps Mr. Card would be happier in the days when marriages were contracts for producing as many children as possible because you'd never really know how many of them would survive.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-23 04:58 pm (UTC)"Two or more people, in the sight of family, friends, community and/or deity, pledging their troth to each another, with the purposes of creating a family unit (with or without children) to support and love one another."
then i agree. i will fight any government that tries to reduce the broad spectrum of that ability. ;-)
just a thought.
i had one friend give me the argument that we should redefine marriage as a narrow, religious thing, and create a new term for a new day that embraces all the wonderful love and families out there. She said "civil union" is to sterile... but to create something new rather than fighting the willfully stubborn and narrow minded folks, we step aside and create something new that is morebetter.
eitherway, i'm so happy to see the progress that is happening, and i cringe with every real or potential setback. this is our next fight for civil liberties. and it's the best goal. Freedom of Love.