I had no idea.
This is a link to Orson Scott Card's latest rant about gay marriage and the supreme court. Feelings which I was blissfully ignorant of until this morning.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
I knew that Mr. Card is a Mormon. I have no problem with that. I respect his feelings on the constitution and the supreme court.
What's giving me chills is a response that is pretty much taking the words right out of my own head:
http://www.geekinthecity.com/rants/you_overthrow_t.php
"Ender's Game" was the first novel that I ever read. I read it when I was 9 years old and I've read it several times since. Whenever I get into a discussion with someone who hasn't read it but expresses an interest, I always go out and buy them a fresh copy.
Maybe I'm overeacting, I know. I think my favorite geek Rick Emerson said it best:
"Chills.
"When heroes go down," sang Suzanne Vega, "they go down fast."
Aaron "Geek in the City" Duran weighs in on the recent anti-gay-marriage comments made by celebrated author Orson Scott Card. Rarely have I seen a sense of deep betrayal put in such stark, emotional terms."
This is a link to Orson Scott Card's latest rant about gay marriage and the supreme court. Feelings which I was blissfully ignorant of until this morning.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
I knew that Mr. Card is a Mormon. I have no problem with that. I respect his feelings on the constitution and the supreme court.
What's giving me chills is a response that is pretty much taking the words right out of my own head:
http://www.geekinthecity.com/rants/you_overthrow_t.php
"Ender's Game" was the first novel that I ever read. I read it when I was 9 years old and I've read it several times since. Whenever I get into a discussion with someone who hasn't read it but expresses an interest, I always go out and buy them a fresh copy.
Maybe I'm overeacting, I know. I think my favorite geek Rick Emerson said it best:
"Chills.
"When heroes go down," sang Suzanne Vega, "they go down fast."
Aaron "Geek in the City" Duran weighs in on the recent anti-gay-marriage comments made by celebrated author Orson Scott Card. Rarely have I seen a sense of deep betrayal put in such stark, emotional terms."
In the case of politics, his views would concern me if they started to become a thing of clout. Am i disapointed? Sure, just as with anyone who holds views i strongly dont agree with disapoints me. but thats got nothing to do with words on a page, organised in a pleasing pattern. which is what his book is.
I'm more outraged at the State of California's government to overturn the voters. The democratic system fails when the people's voice is overruled by the select few we elect to a position of stewardship. For the California to overrule Prop. 22 is unconstitutional and a violation of democratic process. If they want to take another vote to annul Prop. 22 that ones thing. But to disregard the people and take matters into their own hands is not democracy.
I agree with that thought, although not on a full scale. There's a reason why we don't have true democracy. That's because people are ignorant and reactionary. While it's OK to maintain those beliefs, I don't agree that a majority should have the right to decide the fate of a minority.
Just remember that there was a time where a majority of people would've voted to continue slavery, segregation and against many civil liberties the African American community have these days. I'm glad that the government overrules certain oppressive values.
I guess we just have to ask ourselves when is it ok for the government to step in. I agree with the title "You Overthrow to Free, Not Lock".
I have known for awhile that OSC is conservative/fundamentalist (despite affiliating himself as a Democrat!) in his political and religious beliefs... the best I can do as a fan is to separate those two entities: OSC the author vs. OSC the radical revolutionary.
While I can agree with and share the dismay of the blogger (and fellow sifters), I am not sure that this can be regarded as an isolated incident nor a unique situation in which an author produces quality novel(s) but subscribes to beliefs that readers may not agree with. Certainly this has occurred with many authors in the past.
I think the underlying message of the article is not just the explicitly stated dichotomy between the novels and OSC's own personal beliefs. Since OSC did not blatantly let his opinions spill over into his novels (perhaps even working against them), it just makes it harder to digest when confronted with it, especially if the reader has built up a measure of respect for the author. In other words, once you care enough about a book's author that you start caring about what they believe personally, of course it becomes easy to lose sight of the good qualities of the book itself.
OSC subscribes to many controversial beliefs besides the one noted here... it is interesting that this one just seems to be more inflammatory than others, perhaps because of his suggestion of revolution.
What bothers me is the polarity of the person who will do that. If the government is going to shape our society's social makeup, I'd like to have a say in that. I'm not alone on this 61% of Californians felt the same way in 2000, when prop 22 was passed and put into law.
If marriage is going to be redefined to include same-sex spouses, animals, inanimate objects, or whatever else people will marry. I have an issue with that. A much bigger one if you include a government that is willing to skip due process and just go by 'what they think is best' rather then adhering to the voice of the people.
How much should the majority sacrifice for the sake of the few? How many things should we exclude before we include every base impulse that comes to or human experence?
Go ahead, flame away at my views. Tell me what a bigot I am, yell at me to not just tolerate but embrace and support a view simply because it's yours. I'm not asking anyone to change their minds, only respect my right to raise posterity in a world where self-control and the family unit are valued.
But asking for the family unit to be based on what has perpetuated the human race for thousands of years, is getting to be too much for me to ask? I'm sorry before you give away my voice to the minority, I'd like to make it heard.
"If marriage is going to be redefined to include same-sex spouses, animals, inanimate objects, or whatever else people will marry. I have an issue with that. A much bigger one if you include a government that is willing to skip due process and just go by 'what they think is best' rather then adhering to the voice of the people.
How much should the majority sacrifice for the sake of the few? "
The difference here is that people, yes even people of a different/same sex as you are still people. Animals are not people. Inanimate objects are not people. Vice versa. I dislike the idea of grouping homosexuals into the same category as animals and inanimate objects. Makes for a very simplistic argument, too.
The point here is that the government should NOT shape society's social makeup, and should not tell PEOPLE who (yes, "who", not "what") they should or should not love.
That is all.
The argument that marriage propogates the species is pretty tired. (and I'm not saying that you made that argument) A lot of people use it though and it falls flat after a little discussion. If people can't produce children at all, shouldn't they still be allowed to marry? And what about hermaphrodites? They really do exist you know. Can someone with an underdeveloped penis and vagina marry a woman if they too identify themselves with that gender? Is someone going to measure their organs to make sure that one is larger or dominant?
I don't know why you're opposed to same sex marriage because you didn't really say. But most of the arguments I've heard for being opposed to it can easily be countered in my experience.
That being said, I agree with you that our country's laws need to be created out of the democratic process. The only issue I see here though, is that part of me thinks that it should already be everyone's right. There's no law that says it shouldn't be everyone's right is there? If there is, can you name it? Isn't it already the right of everyone to marry whomever they choose?
When black people got the right to vote, did we have to all vote on it, or did we just all agree that they had always had the right? Really, I don't know the history there.
I think Jessie Ventura said it best:
"Love is bigger than govornment. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who they can fall in love with? I think it's absurd, the fact (that) it's even being debated. We can solve the problem simply: government only acknowledges civil unions. Then you don't have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage."