Yes, he is Mormon, but let's not hold that against him.
Orson Scott Card, who has written a ton of science fiction (I consider a few of his books to be among my favorites in the genre), has also written an ugly and disappointing article with an extremely stupid URL. Basically, he argues that the idea of gay marriage is harmful to society in general, and part of a larger campaign waged by... um, goblins maybe?... a campaign to destroy the institution of capital "m" Marriage in America.
I understand (though I don't agree with) many of the arguments against gay marriage, but I do not get how anyone can seriously argue, as Card does, that "Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone." Yes, a gay man is allowed to marry a woman, and a gay woman is allowed to marry a man, but in order to consider that a legitimate option one must ignore the idea that married people should actually want to be married to each other. To clumsily make a comparison that many people have more deftly made before me, it's like arguing that, years ago, black people and white people were allowed to marry... Oh, except that they couldn't marry each other.
Card suggests that society thrives based on stable and supportive families, and I certainly agree with him there, but he also asserts that only a household comprising a mother and father is suitable for raising a child. He argues that, because most men want to marry their mothers and surpass their fathers (hasn't our analysis gotten more sophisticated since Freud?), and because it "takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern," well, it's obviously Right. Because struggling against our natural limitations is un-American. That's why our national motto is "Status Quo Means Good Enough."
He says, 'We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."' Well, good heavens, first we define a group of people who care for and love each other as a "family." What's next? Legal file-sharing???
Things became more or less farcical when Card broke out this rhetoric:
Yes, "Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get." I'm starting to think Mr. Card may not be a Kerry supporter.
Card degenerates into a lot of talk of "mating" and "civilization" and generally comes uncomfortably close to eugenics as far as I'm concerned.
It's pretty clear, at least to me, that Card thinks being gay is icky and doesn't want to think about his own sexuality (see such comments as "Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back"). I think this, the "ick factor," is at the heart of the great majority of people who oppose gay marriage. The image of two guys making out in tuxedos sends an involuntary shiver down their spines and they reach for the nearest bible passage or oversimplified theory that asserts the superiority of heterosexuality, thus banishing from their conscious mind any need to consider and accept someone else's differences as acceptable or even valuable.
I'll close with the most condescending, insulting, arrogant, and despicable part of his hateful diatribe. You just tell me whether you think this is a measured, rational, and mature response to a complex issue:
Full disclosure: I oppose heterosexual marriage.
I understand (though I don't agree with) many of the arguments against gay marriage, but I do not get how anyone can seriously argue, as Card does, that "Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone." Yes, a gay man is allowed to marry a woman, and a gay woman is allowed to marry a man, but in order to consider that a legitimate option one must ignore the idea that married people should actually want to be married to each other. To clumsily make a comparison that many people have more deftly made before me, it's like arguing that, years ago, black people and white people were allowed to marry... Oh, except that they couldn't marry each other.
Card suggests that society thrives based on stable and supportive families, and I certainly agree with him there, but he also asserts that only a household comprising a mother and father is suitable for raising a child. He argues that, because most men want to marry their mothers and surpass their fathers (hasn't our analysis gotten more sophisticated since Freud?), and because it "takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern," well, it's obviously Right. Because struggling against our natural limitations is un-American. That's why our national motto is "Status Quo Means Good Enough."
He says, 'We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."' Well, good heavens, first we define a group of people who care for and love each other as a "family." What's next? Legal file-sharing???
Things became more or less farcical when Card broke out this rhetoric:
Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.
Yes, "Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get." I'm starting to think Mr. Card may not be a Kerry supporter.
Card degenerates into a lot of talk of "mating" and "civilization" and generally comes uncomfortably close to eugenics as far as I'm concerned.
It's pretty clear, at least to me, that Card thinks being gay is icky and doesn't want to think about his own sexuality (see such comments as "Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back"). I think this, the "ick factor," is at the heart of the great majority of people who oppose gay marriage. The image of two guys making out in tuxedos sends an involuntary shiver down their spines and they reach for the nearest bible passage or oversimplified theory that asserts the superiority of heterosexuality, thus banishing from their conscious mind any need to consider and accept someone else's differences as acceptable or even valuable.
I'll close with the most condescending, insulting, arrogant, and despicable part of his hateful diatribe. You just tell me whether you think this is a measured, rational, and mature response to a complex issue:
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
Full disclosure: I oppose heterosexual marriage.