?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
comics bone stupid stupid rat creatures

In which Orson Scott Card advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Oh, Scott Card, No.

Because really, apparently we can't bring about any advance in basic human rights in this country without having to put down an armed insurrection first.

To raise the entertainment value, Scott's logic isn't all that much like our Earth logic. Let me quote, for your edification, a few of the more laughable excerpts, with some of the intervening alarmist hyperbole about babykillin' and schools full of liberal propaganda trimmed out, because it's a little distracting from the sheer madness of what's being said here.

Scott sez:

There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

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....

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

This is a permanent fact of nature
[[His confidence is so touching. Nobody tell him about the penguins.]]....

Married people are doing something that is very, very hard -- to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.

When they are able to create children together, married people then provide the role models for those children to learn how to become a man or a woman, and what to expect of their spouse when they themselves marry.

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage....

Biological imperatives trump laws.


...okay, so it's natural and universal. But has to be taught. Or else we'll be scraping the queers out of the kitchen fridge, and even the heterosexuals will openly fuck everybody. Especially the men, because:

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

Okay, so let me get this straight*: Because marriage (between two people of opposite sexes) is a natural, universal, incontrovertible biological imperative, the married folks will rise up and overthrow the government to defend it, because it can only exist in the presence of supportive laws.**

Oh, god. Even after seven and a half years of the Bush Administration, my head still hurts.

Where's Evil Monkey? There has to be somebody out here who can explain this to me.


*yeah. I know. that's my first problem.

**yeah, you're not here for the politics, I know. just go ahead and unfriend me now.

Comments

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
Explanation.

A) Reactionary religions are based on oppression of women through the "sacred institution of marriage."

B) Anything that threatens that foundation of oppression threatens the patriarchy.

C) Humanity is not the rational animal, it is the rationalizing animal. We do what we want, then use our mighty brains to make up reasons later.

D) Card is an Asshat.

DINGDINGDING!

I think we have a winner.
I want to know what they put in the water in Greensboro that he thinks adultery is openly expected of men.

Also, why does EVERYONE have to get married?
Because if you don't marry off your wimmin young, they go to feminist conventions in corsetry and drink to excess and chase each other down the halls singing bawdy songs.

I have this on good authority. :D
the careening logic made me seasick. or maybe it just made me sick.

There has to be somebody out here who can explain this to me.

I'll give it a shot: Card is of the particular flavor of crazy that says "people who are different from me must be re-educated until one of two things occurs: 1) they are no longer different from me, or 2) they are no longer." Presumably because teh homofagorts threaten his worldview in some way, possibly having something to do with the book of Leviticus, or maybe homophobia, or maybe he just wasn't brought up right, I dunno.

But whatever it is, I'm sorry, and as another conservative white male, I'd just like to raise my hand and say "that guy? Not only does he not speak for me, but I wouldn't mind all that much if everybody who thought like him all spontaneously got hit upside th' haid with somethin' heavy".
I'm actually almost fine with the first two paragraphs of that (if you just substitute "adults" for "a man and a woman", which I realize OSC never ever would). But the logical conclusion seems to me to be to just get the government out of the marriage business. Leave the sacraments to religion and let the government just establish legal partnerships to provide for inheritance, next of kin rights, and so on, with no need for those to be romantically based at all - maybe you trust your brother or your best friend more than anyone else in the world.

However, as you have ably demonstrated, clearly logical conclusions aren't what he's looking for here.

(I've never had gay sex. Question for the commenters: is it realy *so much better* that all hetero people would automatically leave their partners and go screw their own gender like cooped-up zoo animals if only our wise lawmakers didn't prohibit it? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the actual people involved are more important than the gender of the people involved, but someone please tell me if I'm wrong here, 'cause I'd hate to think I'd been missing something everyone else knew about.)
But the logical conclusion seems to me to be to just get the government out of the marriage business. Leave the sacraments to religion and let the government just establish legal partnerships to provide for inheritance, next of kin rights, and so on, with no need for those to be romantically based at all - maybe you trust your brother or your best friend more than anyone else in the world.


See, there you go being sensible. Report for re-education.

Question for the commenters: is it realy *so much better* that all hetero people would automatically leave their partners and go screw their own gender like cooped-up zoo animals if only our wise lawmakers didn't prohibit it?


No.

Only the people who feel that gay sex is so much better than het sex that it must be legislated against or the human race will die out are really at risk for that behavior.

ETA: Boy, I really wish LJ would insert the SAME quote code every time I hit the quote button.





Edited at 2008-07-31 03:40 am (UTC)
A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

The irony in this paragraph is filling me with totally inappropriate laughter. Wasn't it barely fifty years ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness?

Karma, even that which springs from ignorance and paranoia, is *hilarious*.
And you know, there are still people who think being queer is a mental illness.

Male end or female?
So, has he revealed that this whole reactionary rightwing thing has been a Demosthenes-and-Locke-esque social experiment to explore how people can hold to self indulgent, morally reprehensible viewpoints while the majority of the culture is at a turning point against them, and now he's going to go back to the guy who wrote about humans and aliens inflicting tragedies on each through what turns out to be fundamental cultural misunderstandings?

Please?
I'm so sorry to pop in out of nowhere but I have to tell you that your icon is FANTASTIC and AWESOME and I love it.
...that's not just not Earth Logic. I think it may have come in from another galaxy. Or possibly a bizarre alternate reality.

That, or he's been talking to a Family First politician.
well, remember, Card is a Mormon, which means it's totally okay for him to butcher his way into heaven if someone who claims to speak for god tells him to.
I, personally, am about to take the (few) OSC books I own and recycle them. I'd burn them, but it would add to global warming and, besides, has unpleasant political connotations.
How about mailin' 'em to Card COD*?

_____
*Does the Post Office even have COD anymore?

I couldn't not comment...

...hope that's ok. And my head's hurting, too.

I have to head this one off from the first sentence. Marriage, as defined in western socio-political terms (ya' know the ones that grant the legal rights to combine property and make end of life decisions for each other and receive simple employee benefits like, er, health insurance) is, ahem, a legal institution.

And if not legal and political--then these definitions must be coming from the Judeo-Christian belief system? Just connecting the dots in my migraine. Then, allow me to give Mr. Card a history lesson, if I may.

Marriage, for the common folk, was never a religious institution as far as the Christian church was concerned (omg! yes. true.) In fact, most vows were taken at home, with friends to witness--the church only got involved for heads of state where inheritance of political power might later be contended. In the Catholic church, marriage has only been a 'Sacrament' (something other than a political institution for inheritance purposes) for less than 400 years.

So...WTF? I could go on, but WTF?! The convenient logic...it smells bad...somebody light a match, crack a window...PLEEZ. We suffocate.

Re: I couldn't not comment...

Come to think of it, and i have read the bible a few times, i don't remember any official marriage vows in the old testament or much mention of marriage in the new.

There is a marriage scene in the NT (i'm not going to look it up) that some of the Gnostics thought was Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalene.

There is "Thou Shalt not commit Adultery" but no "thou shalt get married"

And the OT people were more or less polygamous.

But you are right. Marriage was a property issue. People without property had to jump the broom, or just fuck and have kids or whatever.
I keep wanting to read Ender's Game, but shit like this keeps stopping me.
Oh, the book was written before his crazy set in. Get the book from the library or a used bookstore. That way you're not paying him royalties.
I actually consider Card a tragic figure, because he's done the worst thing a writer can do: betray his own characters.

All OSC's early works revolve around children abused by their traditional families. The patriarchal family he depicts (in the first 3 Ender books, in Wyrms, in Hart's Hope, early in Alvin Maker, at least) is *monstrous*, a written counterpart to Goya's picture of Saturn Devouring His Son. The only hope for these children is to reject their parents, and even their species -- to reach out to the buggers, the fools, the aliens, to pity their parents but to grow beyond them.

Rants like this aren't just assholery, they're a rejection of the moral truths of Card's own fiction, a rejection of his own characters, his literary children.

He's like Abraham, sacrificing the Isaac of his creative heart, and for what? What has G*d offered that is worth more than his own writerly truth, more than his *soul*?

I think -- based on only the kind of superficial evidence to be found in "Locus" -- that OSC went mad with grief, and is bribing G*d with his good behavior so that he will be re-united with his dead family members, as per Mormon doctrine.

The question is, is it truly a tragedy when the protagonist refuses to notice?
Thank you for phrasing this better than I ever could. It's why I can no longer read Card. It just hurts.
Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

Uh, right, which is why the LDS no longer practices plural marriage, yes? Oh, no -- that was because the US government would not allow Utah to become a state so long as the practice continued.

Card is just further proof that no matter how much you might like someone's stories (at least his Alvin Maker series, I couldn't stand Ender) that they can still be a complete asshat.

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

I wonder what his wife has to say about that.

::sigh::
I wonder what his wife has to say about that.

His wife presumably thinks what he tells her to think. She is, after all, his property (Or, possibly, creeping up behind him right now with a sharp knife. We can but hope).
*headdesks repeatedly*


You know what? As soon as someone presents to me ONE logical, LEGAL argument as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'll stop bitching. Until then, I will continue to debate heatedly.

Bah. Willful ignorance. I wanna go live in antarctica with the penguins.
I know. I was rather expecting that here in MA, with our legal gay marriage and all, there would at some point in the brou-ha-ha be a logical argument against it. And there wasn't. Ever. Just frothing and circular reasoning, and a passion to mandate a certain kind of religious belief.
Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>