Geek Girls Rule #53 – Why does Orson Scott Card keep putting that extra ‘m’ in the word “moron?”
Posted by geekgirlsrule on July 30, 2008
First, I have to admit to having read an Orson Scott Card novel, and even enjoying it. It was nice, middle of the road fantasy/sci fi novel, heavy on the allegory about TEH EVULS OF TEH FLESH (particularly female flesh), but apart from that, it was ok. Honestly, I had to go look it up online to remember the plot apart from the main character being a girl assassin. By and large, though, his writing does not excite me. He’s an adequate sci-fi author who has a good following. Good for him. But as I repeat many times in reference to L. Ron Hubbard, who the fuck thinks it’s a good idea to take any philosophical truths from SF/F authors? Really, now.
http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586 (ETA 8/14/09 apparently the post is no longer there)
Seriously, go read it. I feel like sharing the head explodey “joy.”
Man, where the hell do I begin with this? Do I begin with his utter and complete ignorance of… everything? Ok, not everything. I’m thinking perhaps a deconstruction of this paragraph by paragraph may prove entertaining, because I can find something wrong in almost every one. Actually, I’ll just hit a few highlights.
“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.”
You know, I don’t recall his fiction being this filled with rabid hyperbole, but yup, you read it here first. Gay marriage will end democracy. Never mind that the US isn’t actually a Democracy, it’s a Democratic Republic. In further paragraphs this “end of democracy” is actually due to the activist judges subverting the will of the people in order to follow the homosexual agenda.
“…it is absurd to claim that these (state) constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years.”
Really? Because up until the Loving decision, a Supreme Court ruling in 1967, it was “unthinkable” to let a mixed race couple marry in the United States.
“It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority…”
Um, no, it’s not, actually. It’s actually the definition of their jobs. From Wikipedia (ok, I’m doing this quick and dirty): “The supreme court of each state is the final authority on the interpretation of that state’s laws and constitution.” Next.
“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.”
BULLSHIT! Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Sorry. It’s just such a phenomenally stupid statement, and one that can be refuted with a minimum of effort. Abortion regulations vary state to state. Roe -v- Wade just says that women have the right to abortion, that denying abortion violates a woman’s right to privacy. NO STATE IN THE UNITED STATES ALLOWS ABORTION MID-BIRTH, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!! Sorry, again. I just… wow, the sheer mass of ignorance in that statement makes me want to punch something.
Here is the link for abortion law in Washington State. It states that post-viability abortions, except in cases of danger to the mother’s health, are illegal. You can go read the website for the definition of “viability.” I found it with Google, so I know it isn’t hard. In fact, I think I’ll do Mr. Card’s home state.
Well, it doesn’t appear that North Carolina has their laws up on the web, or at least they aren’t coming up on the first two pages of Google results, but I did find this page which provides a brief overview of state laws concerning abortion: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/stablw.htm Hmmm, it seems North Carolina is also a state that outlaws post-viability abortions except in cases of danger to the health of the mother. Go figure.
“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.”
Actually, no it’s not illegal to pray there. It is illegal to obstruct access to the clinic. Law here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/facestat.htm
Dude, seriously, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The next several paragraphs go on about all the schools with textbooks that talk about gay marriage. Ok, seriously, I haven’t heard of any, but then again, I don’t have kids. I’ll have to ask my parent-type friends about these Gay Agenda-Friendly textbooks. But I remain skeptical, to say the least.
“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.”
And rightly so. I wouldn’t call terming the legalization of gay marriage “the end of democracy” a “mild” critical comment. I mean, I guess compared with all the yahoos calling to have all the fags rounded up and put into camps, it COULD be categorized as mild. But then again, if we take that tack, being shot in the leg with a rifle is “mild” compared to being blown up with a mortar round. Good grief.
He goes on to talk about how the term “homophobe” pathologizes people like him. Well, yeah, because an unreasonable amount of concern with the bedroom practices of people you don’t know, and this panicky insistence that if they are treated like human beings and citizens of the United States that the world will come crashing down around our ears sounds pretty fucking pathological to me.
“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.”
Ok, let’s try this again, “There is no branch of the government with the authority to DEFINE marriage.” There, fixed it for you. They aren’t redefining or defining. They’re letting people marry according to their own beliefs, because of a little thing I like to call the First Amendment. You know, the one that guarantees your right to be a Mormon, and my right to be a Pagan, and even the rights of people to be Atheists if they want? Because with freedom OF religion, there also comes an implied freedom FROM religion.
And this part is just too, too, too easy: “Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman.” Um, actually, it’s not. For most of the existence of a thing called marriage, plural marriages have been the norm. And not just one guy with lots of women, sometimes even one woman with several guys (ok, way less common, but it still existed). There’s also the matter of child marriages. Let’s not forget marriages contracted solely for business arrangements, to cement economic and political ties. Let’s also not forget the roots of your very own religion, Mr. Card. Do I really have to point this out? Are you so lax and degenerate in the history of your own faith that it’s going to take an apostate gentile like myself to point out that not even your Church has always defined marriage as between one man and one woman?
Not to mention that whole “permanent or semi-permanent” thing. I’m not even going there, it’s too easy.
“The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage…”
At least we agree on something.
And then he blathers on about what if congress passed laws changing the names of colors and a whole bunch of other stuff that makes zero sense and has jack all to do with the topic at hand. And then goes back to how no law can change the permanent state of nature, blah blah blah…
Seriously, Mr. Card, if you don’t want people to view you as a hateful homophobe, then please quit saying hateful, homophobic things. It really is that simple. If you are against gay marriage, don’t have one. Your Church already has the right, and will continue to have the right, to refuse to marry people if it so desires, and that will not change, because of the First Amendment, just as some Churches have been performing Spiritual Marriages for LGBTQI folk for years already, because they’ve seen the unfairness and very un-Christian-ness of your stance.
Honestly, as long as both human beings entering into a marriage are doing so of their own free will and volition, and are of consenting age (or have permission from parents), it really is no one’s business but their own.