Brought to you by Orson Scott Card.
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.Remind me again how it is that liberals are the traitors?
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.
Meanwhile, society in Massachusetts, California, Canada, and everywhere else where same-sex marriage is legal casually continues to refuse to fall apart.
Update: Not a lawyer, but:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; orJust sayin'.
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;
[...]
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
[Just to be clear, Card stops one short of saying that he advocates the overthrow of the government himself. He uses one of the classic weasel techniques, attributing the above sentiments, which are clearly in line with his own, to a generalized group, in this case "married people." It's textbook protection-racket talk.]
7 Responses:
You'll be surprised to hear that sci-fi writer Card believes that global warming is a hoax and that James Hansen is at the center of a conspiracy to hide that fact from the public.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
Well now I'll never read another Orson Scott Card novel.
Wow.
It was hard slogging through that diatribe, but the essence of the argument is "We must save marriage for men and women for the sake of the children"
He then equates out-of-wedlock pregnancy with abortion rights...
Lets make it simple for him.
Children are born because men and women have sex.
Hormones don't care if you're married.
It takes committed parents to raise a child.
You can be married and be childless and you can be unmarried and have children (even under law, there's no penalties either way).
Gay couples are just as able to commit to a lasting monogamous relationship as "straight" couples.
Gay people will live together and commit to each other regardless of whether they are legally recognized or not.
Soo.... Given that these facts are for the most part unrelated to each other. What difference does it make how we define marriage?
We decided to get married to symbolize our commitment to each other. At that time, we had no plans nor any desire to have children.
My wife and I want to be good parents to our sons, because we want to be parents. Not because we're married, but because we wanted to have children.
Even though I am married, and am now a father, how I behave as a husband and a father is a reflection of me, no one else.
Whether 2 or 4 or 6 men live together (heck even get married) affects me not at all. They don't threaten my relationship with my wife, and they don't affect how I act as a father.
In short, what they do is their business, what I do is mine.
I'd add in the sentence immediately before what you've quoted ... without that this quote takes on the appearance of quote-mining, as the context changes.
The quote is still vile, but given that you've quoted the legal bit, it would be more fair to show that Card is posing a rhetorical question rather than flatly stating he is going to overthrow the gov't.
I expect (and hope) this would fall under free speech no matter how much disdain I hold for what he's saying..
True, but Card is using one of the classic dodges: attempting to draw a cordon sanitaire around his own ideas by attributing them to a generalized other, in this case "parents." It's textbook protection-racket talk.
Yes, I agree.
It saddened me the first time I read one of Card's tirades against homosexuals. I respected him deeply for his writing ... well, some of it. But then, as a guy who should have some knowledge of science, to go off telling people that gayness is "unnatural". That's just so far in to ignorant ...
Post a Comment