« Why I oppose you, Mr. Card | Main | If you like the political rants... »

February 25, 2004

Comments

Claris

Good job.

Reese

Very nicely put, sir. You have eloquted many points that I have, myself, espoused (if you'll pardon the pun). I do feel it necessary to point out the unfairness of the following:

"Funny how when a few singers and actors speak out against a war, they're traitors, but when a writer
claims he'll sever all ties of loyalty to his country if it allows same sex marriage I hear no shouts of
America, love her or leave her and no fingers pointed in censure of the apparent disloyalty. Apparently
it's okay to turn your back on America if you're conservative."

As someone who considers himself a conservative, I must take exception to this statement. I have been as vocal an opponent of the Neo-McCarthyism begun by such pundits as Sean Hannity and other conservative media personalities as any liberal. I strongly believe that everyone should have a right to express their opinion, and that only by hearing these differing views can we ever hope to grow beyond our prejudices.

To that end, I also do have a rather strong tinge of nationalism within me, and will gleefully invite someone who claims discontent to express their views by leaving, if that is how they wish to be counted. Part of our many freedoms is the freedom to leave if we get fed up.

I do find it somewhat disingenuous that you compare Mr. Card to a traitor, but then imply that only conservatives can make such an accusation. Not that I'm defending his words, as I agree that they are bigoted and short-sighted.

Anyway, my nitpik is minor, and I enjoyed your words. I only hope that more of this nation will take up the call and do their part to prevent this amendment from occurring. The "civil union by the state" and "marriage by the church" solution is exactly the one that I have been suggesting (when asked) and I firmly believe it is the best solution to this issue.

ezrael

"I do find it somewhat disingenuous that you compare Mr. Card to a traitor, but then imply that only conservatives can make such an accusation. Not that I'm defending his words, as I agree that they are bigoted and short-sighted."

It's actually completely disingenuous, and meant to be taken that way. I suppose the sarcasm can be lost in the medium chosen, but in this particular instance I was attempting to point out how deafening the silence was from those that usually make the charge. (Although I will argue that there will be no uproar, and Mr. Card will not see any movement to return or ban his books started, or what have you.) It's not unfair in my view to point that out...personally, I would as soon Orson stayed as left for his utopia of the hills, but I'm not the one who proposed abandoning our civilization if he didn't get his way. He was.

Dave Van Domelen

It's not so much a seduction as a dysfunction. To provide a counter-example, my father was sexually abused as a child and ended up with a LOT of repressed issues, one of which was a conviction that he was gay. He's since dealt with those issues (with some help from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections) and now runs a lay ministry to help others who have been in similar situations.

Card is, pretty clearly, full of shit. But there's some nuggets of...wait, I don't think I want to continue this metaphor right after lunch. :)

Anyway, human sexuality is remarkably easy to screw up with a little cruelty at the wrong time, and the ways this expresses are widely varied. Some become convinced of an orientation that is not true, some develop fetishes, some become abusers, etc.

None of which really relates to whether gays should be allowed to marry, unless you were traumatized by rice as a child or something.

Brennan

For all that I love some of OSC's science fiction (the Ender books in particular), I don't have as high an opinion of the author himself. Hearing him speak at a con many moons ago confinced me that Card was a sanctimonious prig. If I had any doubt left, this essay has sealed it. I'll still consider his works individually on their own merits -- or in this case, the lack thereof.

Furhouse

RIGHT ON!

Henry

Awsome. I found your journal through Calamity Jon's blog (Jon Morris). I think your views are dead on and I gave you props on MY journal here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bearringsd/26084.html

Good work!

Logan Quinn

Thank you.

Found your piece by way of Henry at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/bearringsd/26084.html

I too believe government has no business being involved in marriage.

In fact I don't even think they should be in the business of creating civil unions. I think it is discriminatory towards those singles who are not lucky enough to find a life mate, but it is also discriminatory against those on the opposite side of the couples, those who are so lucky that they have found more than one other they wish to spend their lives with, the polygamist. If government does get out of the "marriage" business and holds to some form of civil unions, then any number of two or more people should be allowed to enter into these civil unions, and they should not be given any extra benefits or concessions that a single person cannot also have, such as tax breaks and the like (why should a single person have to pay more in taxes, just because they have been unlucky in love?). As outlined in the Report of the Law Commission of Canada on Close Personal Adult Relationships, civil unions should be flexible enough to accommodate any and all manner of adult relationships.

I find the strawmen that opponents of same-sex marriage erect laughable:

1) The "it will lead to polygamy" argument. My response "So?"
2) The whole discussion about whether gay be are gay by choice, environment, or genetics. Again, my response "So?"

Both these arguments are based on value the judgments of bigots. Both are about restricting the unalienable right to pursue happiness of others. It doesn't matter how or why I am what I am, if I determine that pursuing a gay or polygamous marriage will lead to my own happiness, then it is my right to do so. as long as my pursuit does not actively trample upon the same and equal rights of others, it is no one else's business. End of discussion.

Tony

The real problem with Card's argument is that he believes in the essential depravity of man; that without constant restraint and censure, society will collapse.

This goes way beyond gay marriage. People like this have lost essential faith in humanity. To them, any expression of our elemental desires is something to be distrusted, if not stamped out entirely. This is a fundamentally anti-human argument, one which leads straight to puritanism.

Needless to say, the world does not end if men give in to their reproductive urges. Societies have been far more cruel and chaotic than ours, yet have still survived. Single parenting does not scar children for life, nor does adultery, polygamy, or gay marriage. Society is tough and flexible, and "defending" its future is no excuse for making its current members miserable.

The man simply hates freedom, and wants to abolish it. For the sake of the children, of course.

Justin

Wow. So this is why I couldn't finish "Ender's Game."

Card is full of shit. All gay people got that way because they were either molested or raped? Well, I guess I must be the one exception that proves the rule. I spent two years struggling with the fact that I was gay, no thanks to antediluvian assholes like Card.

I don't want to get married to convert kids. I don't want to get married to destroy marriage from within (fuck you, James Dobson). I want to get married because I want to know that my husband will have a right to my property if I suddenly die, and vice versa. I want to know that I'll be able to be by his side while he suffers a heart attack or something. I want to know that we'll be able to adopt a kid without having to sue left and right for permission to do so. And I want everyone who thinks otherwise to just think about how many rights they and their spouse have.

The comments to this entry are closed.