| heart orson: is he like serious?!?! edition |
[Jul. 29th, 2008|11:25 pm] |
I had foreseen that Orson Scott Card would shake the very foundations of the publishing world and the Internet in his fury at recent developments in California, but even I didn't expect this verbal seizure of insanity with arguments that almost sound like ones given by a time traveler from the 1500s and very dubious understandings of history and politics, capped by a call to overthrow the United States government.
If Card was making a multi-faceted argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, then he failed on multiple levels. But, to be fair, I think if he was deliberately trying to bridge the conceptual void between reality and a parody of an anti-gay argument, then he's making undeniable progress toward evolving into a real-life Herbert Garrison:
"Gay people are evil, evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior."
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.
I'm inclined not to pull Card's other political beliefs into this, but Card's criteria for the health of American democracy is a bit on the staggering side. Basically, a court acting within the scope of California's constitution and the US political process is the "end of democracy", but, for example, the President who took on the power to imprison any US citizen indefinitely is still Card's idea of an exemplary president. You can argue that it would have been preferable for same-sex marriage to have been legalized by legislative action than by "judicial fiat." Personally I think that argument collapses under its own weight and that it's really just a transparent excuse for politicians and jurists alike to give their opposition to same-sex marriage political ground, but it's considerably more rational than what Card's hysterical language implies.
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of American government and history (and, of course, lacking Card's thick ideological blinders) will tell you, the judiciary is part of the "democratic process." There's also a little concept called "the tyranny of the majority" that the founders were well aware of...
Also, while Proposition 22 did pass with a majority vote, two legislative bills were also passed since then to allow same-sex marriage, but were vetoed. Should those of us who support gay marriage say that Arnold Schwartzenegger was acting outside the "democratic process" by striking down bills proposed by a majority of elected representatives?
The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years.
And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.
Ah, the appeal to tradition...
First, it wasn't "unthinkable." For just one example, the Roman satirist Martial made several jokes about people of the same sex getting hitched. So, does Card mean "unthinkable" in the sense that no one considered practicing it? Well, in imperial China, men could marry each other. It is true that social demands meant that they would eventually have to marry women and have children, but their marriages were initiated with the same rites and had the same cultural respect as marriages between men and women. There's also evidence that marriages between women, also with the same rites and privileges, existed.
Even the "15 years" time frame is utterly wrong. There were court cases involving same-sex marriage as early as 1972 (Baker v. Nelson). Frankly, does Card even try to do any research before writing these essays of his?
Besides, there were times and places where the absence of slave labor, the freedom to believe what you wish, workers' rights, and the existence of any form of government other than autocracy were virtually "unthinkable." It isn't hard to imagine Card in past lives arguing passionately for these things too.
It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.
Not to transport you back in time to College Composition, Orson, but this is the sort of assertion that really ought to be backed up by a quote or two.
We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.
Taking Orson's "slippery slope" argument (without even touching on how disingenuous Orson is being over IDX, a.k.a. "partial birth abortions"), I have to ask, how does he think the Great Judicial Activist And Homo Conspiracy will escalate things? Force every licensed minister fill a quota of gay marriages every year? Make knowledge of "Golden Girls" and "Designing Women" part of national high school educational standards?
Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.
Orson is referring to the Supreme Court upholding the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which unfairly restricts people's constitutional right to harass and impede people at Planned Parenthood. It doesn't even require protesters to remain in a designated space, as another right-wing meme claims. "Disingenuous" is a word that can be used to describe Orson's claims here, although I prefer something along the lines of "being a total damn liar."
Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.
I actually envy the ability to perform such mental gymnastics that any move to let gay couples marry or help insure that people aren't physically prevented from entering abortion clinics becomes "intolerance."
Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?
And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.
Shockingly, Orson is distorting facts about a controversial issue! Homeschooling is not illegal in California; the law is now that parents need teaching credentials to homeschool their kids (of course, there's a good argument to be made that this practically makes homeschooling illegal, but that's not what Card writes). If they ever made a game show based on Card's political assertions, titled "It Smells Like BS!", it would be the most unsuccessful game show in television history because people would win the $500,000 grand prize every episode.
Anyway, I never understood the reasoning here, especially because it seems to be an admission from an outraged parent that they don't have the means to try to influence their children's beliefs, or that they don't trust their children to be able to have informed opinions. Of course, you can probably translate Card's words as, "I'm scared their propaganda will trump mine!"
How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.
Oh. My. God. He's going there, isn't he?
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.
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"?
It's funny, because people like Card made sure gay people were classified as mentally ill for decades! Ho ho!
I think this is the part of the argument where I really start to feel sick. This is the man who argued that sodomy laws should be returned to the books and that a few gay people who show affection in public should be arrested in order to intimidate the majority of gays back into the closet, and whose argument against same-sex marriage is that it threatens Western civilization, and who described homosexual desire as "perpetual adolescent sexuality."
Generally if I felt a group out there ought to be subject to arrest just for demonstrating affection in public and that it's important to scare them back into hiding and that they're somehow endangering the future of society as we know it, I think even I'd agree that I am, by definition, "afraid" of them.
Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.
It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.
I honestly have no idea what Card is writing about. I can't think of any great judicially-enabled leaps in gay rights that were made in those decades. The only steps I can think of are employment discrimination protections, but the earliest of those didn't come about until the early '80s.
And I had no idea that the gay rights movement, in all its factions and sub-cultures, got together to promise the US public that marriage rights ain't no thing. My brethren lied to me all this time!
And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups -- RICO laws, for instance.
...because right now in California anti-same-sex marriage groups are being ruthlessly silenced.
Here's the irony: 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.
If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into "greenery" and all our parking lots into "parks"? If a court declared that from now on, "blind" and "sighted" would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?
I guess all the cultures who practiced polygamy or saw marriage as primarily a socio-economic arrangement between families or allowed concubinage in lieu of official marriage didn't exist in the universe or something.
And I'll leave the rest to those who have more of a stomach for addressing Philosophy 101-level semantical arguments. On my part my mind can't formulate a response more complex than "Um, wait, what?"
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.
"Those who use [the epithet "unnatural"] mean only that a sexual act is non-procreative. But if we call all pleasurable activities that are not physiologically necessary unnatural, we should have, for instance, to apply the term to a taste for music." - Louis Crompton's summary of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham's argument against sodomy laws.
By the way, Bentham made that argument in 1774.
(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)
Okay, I admit I'm so looking forward to that. I predict Card will wipe the dust off psychological theories that homosexuality is the result of child abuse!
There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.
Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.
That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.
That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.
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.
When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.
Some marriages are better than others; some fail utterly because of the malfeasance of one or both of the partners.
That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.
There's a great deal to respond to here, but I actually feel sorry that Card thinks marital relationships are entirely about procreation. Right now I'm doing a great deal of reading into what early Christian authorities had to say about sex and marriage, and even the diehard "Don't have sex unless you be makin' the babies!" thinkers once in a while conceded that marriage could be good for spiritual solidarity.
It's also rather funny that Card seems to genuinely believe that homosexual relationships are somehow "easier" (which may go a long way toward explaining his contempt for same-sex marriage). I'm sure the collective response from committed lesbians and gays everywhere will be one loud slow clap.
We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.
We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.
If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.
Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.
So, um, when a gay person gets married it's like they broke into your house and stole your big screen TV?
Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.
Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.
These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.
What used to be informally protected by the customs of villages and tribes is now supposedly protected by governments and laws.
Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of marriage.
Then marriage for Card is all about 1) building babies, and 2) exclusive ownership of another human being. Romance, thy name is spelled O-R-S-O-N-S-C-O-T-T-C-A-R-D.
Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.
We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it's a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.
Divorce is "no-fault," easily obtained on any pretext.
A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.
In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for marriage.
Well...at least he's finally addressing the common pro-same-sex marriage response to arguments like his: "Why aren't you worried about the sanctity of straight marriages?"
Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children -- while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.
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 look forward to Orson Scott Card's History of Marriage and Sexuality, where he will supposedly argue that it's always been rare for men to refuse to support the women they impregnated and where culturally sanctioned male adultery and the "double standard" didn't exist before the Sexual Revolution or thereabouts.
With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.
Oh good, back on track!
Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.
Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.
Don't forget, if you're a husband who's good with the kids or a wife who has "providence" for your family (whatever the hell that means), you're unnatural.
If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.
Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.
It's a little...striking that Card can't even bring himself to spit out the phrase "homosexual relationships."
Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.
If more anti-same-sex marriage advocates share Card's reasoning, I suppose this explains why they never really explain the whole "allowing same-sex marriage will harm society" canard. For all Card's rambling statements about how heterosexual marriage is the end-all and be-all of human existence, I still don't quite grasp the link. Is Card really saying that kids will see married gay couples and come suddenly to the conclusion that having children isn't mandatory after all? If he is, I'm not quite sure if he understands that he's making the implication that childraising is such a burdensome task that people will use the first childless couple they see as an excuse to get out of it.
Anyway, where do couples that decide not to have children fit into Card's worldview? Don't the fact that they're not "tragic genetic mix-ups" make them even more evil?
It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.
It's like Card's been reading "The Meaning Of Life According To The Daleks."
Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?
Of course, no other motive, especially a motive that isn't like a scheme by Witchiepoo is possible.
Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?
Yes, Card is saying that allowing same-sex marriage is more of an "interference" than actively banning same-sex marriages.
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?
What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
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.
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.
Honestly even I wasn't expecting Card claiming that he'd help violently overthrow the government if gay marriage is widely allowed. And I was thinking he couldn't surprise me anymore.
I'll close by officially declaring that Card has by any reasonable standard forfeit his right to lecture other people on their patriotism. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
