Orson Scott Card to overthrow US gov't over gay marriage

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-08-21 11:48pm

The impression I get is that Card basically wrote Ender's Game and has been coasting on that ever since. Is that about accurate? I mean, I read the short story form of Ender's Game before I read the book, and I found the short story a hell of a lot better (and the story itself was okay, but not particularly brilliant) so I never bothered reading any of Card's other books.

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-08-22 02:46am

Uraniun235 wrote:The impression I get is that Card basically wrote Ender's Game and has been coasting on that ever since. Is that about accurate? I mean, I read the short story form of Ender's Game before I read the book, and I found the short story a hell of a lot better (and the story itself was okay, but not particularly brilliant) so I never bothered reading any of Card's other books.

Yeah, pretty much. I enjoyed Ender's Game and some of its related books, but his later stuff is absolutely horrendous. Somewhere along the line, I think mostly towards the end of the Ender series, he got so incredibly preachy that I couldn't read much more. I never finished the Homecoming series, and I probably only sort of liked it because I was 14 at the time I read them. That time travel story he wrote involving Columbus and shit was the last straw; I haven't read any of his books after that one.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-08-22 03:03am

Only a Mormon could convince himself that society has no business regulating the movement of capital, but it does have an overwhelming imperative to regulate personal sexual conduct.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-08-22 08:11am

Don't you realize that heterosexual marriage is so important because a woman's place in the afterlife is determined by the status of her husband? If men marry men, there won't be enough husbands to go around! Women will be damned for lack of a suitable mate!

Mormons are even more fucked in the head than the average Christian nutjob.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-08-22 08:47am

Vympel wrote:The ridiculous formulation of gay marriage being a "threat" to heterosexual marriage has always just killed me. Could these morons even begin to justify how this formulation makes sense? What, are they afraid all of their "traditional" marriages will collapse and the husbands and wives will run out and get gay-married?

Wow, if traditional marriage is so weak as to crumble with such casual ease because of Ellen deGeneres and Portia Rossi, well, maybe it isn't worth saving in the first place.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-08-22 08:48am

Broomstick wrote:Don't you realize that heterosexual marriage is so important because a woman's place in the afterlife is determined by the status of her husband? If men marry men, there won't be enough husbands to go around! Women will be damned for lack of a suitable mate!.

That's when the Polygamy kicks in.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-08-22 08:50am

SpacedTeddyBear wrote: That's exactly why they are afraid of legalizing gay marriage. Every aspect of our society must be defined by their biblical moral standards, otherwise any contrary behavior is a threat to their own way of life.

No, I think it's because they're sexually repressed and afraid hot gay men will start hitting on them, and even more afraid that this will actually give them boners and make 'em think about hot sweaty man-love and penis. And that would make them hate themselves forever.

Remember, people: GAY IS CONTAGIOUS!

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2008-08-22 11:03am

OSC has been full of Mormon propaganda from the beginning. He's still a decent writer, if you can overlook that and the fact that he couldn't write a satisfactory ending to save his life.

U-235: I've enjoyed OSC's dabblings in non-scifi more than his science fiction. He wrote a fucking weird horror/suspense called Treasure Box that I liked very much, and his Enchantment, which takes place in a fantasy version of medieval Russia, is really cool (barring the last chapter, which, in typical OSC fashion, might as well be skipped).

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-08-22 11:12am

Broomstick wrote:Orson Scott Card is Mormon, a former missionary, and I believe he's a minister in his church.

To be fair, if you're a man in the mormon church, you are almost guaranteed to be a former missionary and preach from time to time, because they don't have permanent pastors. That's like saying I'm a human, a mammal, and a biped.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-08-22 11:55am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Broomstick wrote:Orson Scott Card is Mormon, a former missionary, and I believe he's a minister in his church.
To be fair, if you're a man in the mormon church, you are almost guaranteed to be a former missionary and preach from time to time, because they don't have permanent pastors. That's like saying I'm a human, a mammal, and a biped.

Yes, my statement was a little redundant, but I don't assume everyone is familiar with how Mormonism pushes every little boy into being a missionary and a preacher.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-08-22 11:56am

Feil wrote:OSC has been full of Mormon propaganda from the beginning. He's still a decent writer, if you can overlook that and the fact that he couldn't write a satisfactory ending to save his life.

Well, if your concept of "decent writer" dovetails nicely with writing some of the most boring pap in existence (Yes, Xenocide, I am looking at you).

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-08-22 12:11pm

Biological imperatives trump laws?

It's a biological imperative for me to nail as many women as possible.

It's a biological imperative for my unemployed, uneducated, low-income, no-prospects next-door neighbor's wife to bang me, because I am a more successful, younger, stronger male who owns property and brings in a six-figure income, to her mate's five.

So don't the biological imperatives here, trump the laws regarding marriage, which Card seems so anxious to uphold?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-08-22 12:12pm

Broomstick wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Broomstick wrote:Orson Scott Card is Mormon, a former missionary, and I believe he's a minister in his church.
To be fair, if you're a man in the mormon church, you are almost guaranteed to be a former missionary and preach from time to time, because they don't have permanent pastors. That's like saying I'm a human, a mammal, and a biped.
Yes, my statement was a little redundant, but I don't assume everyone is familiar with how Mormonism pushes every little boy into being a missionary and a preacher.

Fair enough, but I don't really consider all mormons to be 'preachers' just because they speak in church a few times a year. Now, if OSC is a Bishop or a President in his church, that's a whole other level of committment which is a lot more involved.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-08-22 01:13pm

Coyote wrote:
Vympel wrote:The ridiculous formulation of gay marriage being a "threat" to heterosexual marriage has always just killed me. Could these morons even begin to justify how this formulation makes sense? What, are they afraid all of their "traditional" marriages will collapse and the husbands and wives will run out and get gay-married?
Wow, if traditional marriage is so weak as to crumble with such casual ease because of Ellen deGeneres and Portia Rossi, well, maybe it isn't worth saving in the first place.

Sounds like buyer's remorse from self-hating homosexuals. What they're really saying is:

"You mean I could have held out for a DUDE?"

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-08-22 02:10pm

Kanastrous wrote:Biological imperatives trump laws?

It's a biological imperative for me to nail as many women as possible.

It's a biological imperative for my unemployed, uneducated, low-income, no-prospects next-door neighbor's wife to bang me, because I am a more successful, younger, stronger male who owns property and brings in a six-figure income, to her mate's five.

So don't the biological imperatives here, trump the laws regarding marriage, which Card seems so anxious to uphold?

You have been reading my posts. This makes me so happy!

His propsal would actually low individual fitness, because males are optimized for a certain amount of infidelity, depending on environmental circumstance, and so are females.

Hell as far as I am concerned, infidelity is one of those things that to quote kinsey "every man's sin is no sin at all" It is something that, because morality is built upon a sociobiological construct, has an odd status. It is not immoral, it is antagonistically selected, each sex trying to engage in it, but keep their partner from doing.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-08-22 02:17pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Orson Scott Card uniquely favours anti-gay laws not to ban gay relationships as such, and does not even advocate the fair and even-handed enforcement of laws against gays, but rather wants them so they can be used to terrorize the gay community. This guy is a real piece of work with no respect for the law whatsoever. He also claims this means he's not homophobic because it's more "humane" than indescriminate enforcement of the laws.

Which makes him a natural Republikan, actually.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-08-22 02:17pm

Infidelity is immoral.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-08-22 02:18pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Infidelity is immoral.

In the sense of breaking a vow, yes. If'n you happen to have made one.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-08-22 02:49pm

Kanastrous wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Infidelity is immoral.
In the sense of breaking a vow, yes. If'n you happen to have made one.

Yeah, but only in that respect. At least in western cultures, there is no social sanction whatsoever for infidelity. Hell, it is expected and cheered on when convenient, and denounced when it isnt (like when someone cheats on one of your extended family members or friends)

The worst you can reasonably expect is the end of the relationship. For fuck's sake, female birds do this if they catch their mate cheating, while they just mated with the more brightly colored male in the other nest....

Bear in mind though, I dont think anything is inherently immoral, as that requires the universe caring. But there is a difference between something being inherently immoral, and immoral because we accept it to be.

My argument is that we put up the pretense of accepting infidelity to be immoral, but our actions (as a society and species) say otherwise.

All of this is a side issue though.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-08-22 02:59pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Infidelity is immoral.
In the sense of breaking a vow, yes. If'n you happen to have made one.
Yeah, but only in that respect. At least in western cultures, there is no social sanction whatsoever for infidelity. Hell, it is expected and cheered on when convenient, and denounced when it isnt (like when someone cheats on one of your extended family members or friends)

The worst you can reasonably expect is the end of the relationship. For fuck's sake, female birds do this if they catch their mate cheating, while they just mated with the more brightly colored male in the other nest....

Bear in mind though, I dont think anything is inherently immoral, as that requires the universe caring. But there is a difference between something being inherently immoral, and immoral because we accept it to be.

My argument is that we put up the pretense of accepting infidelity to be immoral, but our actions (as a society and species) say otherwise.

All of this is a side issue though.

What a bunch of obscurantism.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-08-22 03:08pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Kanastrous wrote: In the sense of breaking a vow, yes. If'n you happen to have made one.
Yeah, but only in that respect. At least in western cultures, there is no social sanction whatsoever for infidelity. Hell, it is expected and cheered on when convenient, and denounced when it isnt (like when someone cheats on one of your extended family members or friends)

The worst you can reasonably expect is the end of the relationship. For fuck's sake, female birds do this if they catch their mate cheating, while they just mated with the more brightly colored male in the other nest....

Bear in mind though, I dont think anything is inherently immoral, as that requires the universe caring. But there is a difference between something being inherently immoral, and immoral because we accept it to be.

My argument is that we put up the pretense of accepting infidelity to be immoral, but our actions (as a society and species) say otherwise.

All of this is a side issue though.
What a bunch of obscurantism.

Would you like me to use single-syllable words for you? Or would you just prefer if I engage in your mindless black/white view of morality and ethics? Your world must be boring... all black and white, no shades of gray...

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-08-22 03:46pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Yeah, but only in that respect. At least in western cultures, there is no social sanction whatsoever for infidelity. Hell, it is expected and cheered on when convenient, and denounced when it isnt (like when someone cheats on one of your extended family members or friends)

What?

Since when there is no social sanction for infidelity?

Men who are divorced several times are regarded with suspicion (unless they're stinking rich). Cheating women are treated as sluts, shunned and ostracized in many social circles. The law allows the court to give most of the shared property to the betrayed party during divorce proceedings. Cheating husbands are sometimes forced to pay a regular allowance to their spouses.

Hell, if a betrayed spouse murders her/his partner in a fit of rage, this is seen as excusable, and they can get a lower sentence (murder II rather than murder I) because of that.

And finally, in some places cheating husbands are in real, tangible physical danger from their spouse's extended family. Same goes for cheating women.

There is plenty of social and even legal sanctions for infidelity (hello? cheating husbands are forced by the state to pay alimony if they sired a child...). I have no idea where you took this statement from.

SilverWingedSeraph · Post by **SilverWingedSeraph** » 2008-08-22 03:49pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote: What a bunch of obscurantism.

I suggest you look up the definition of that word, since it doesn't mean what you think it means.

1. opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge.
2. deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.

Alyrium was doing neither. He was quite clear in what he was saying, so if your claim is that he was being too vague, it is false. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are lacking, which I wouldn't be too surprised by, since you tried to use the word "obscurantism" completely out of context. And he certainly wasn't opposing the increase or spread of knowledge.

So, what was the point you were trying to make, exactly?

Ohma · Post by **Ohma** » 2008-08-22 04:01pm

I think his point was something to the effect of "infidelity is bad", and apparently Alyrium talking about biological imperitives which tend to compel humans toward infidelity means that he has no problems whatsoever with it and that he believes it should be considered perfectly fine and normal/desireable by society.

At least I think that's what Illuminatus is all angry about.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-08-22 04:34pm

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:I suggest you look up the definition of that word, since it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I do, pipsqueak.

2. deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.

Thank you.

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:
1. opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge.
2. deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.
Alyrium was doing neither. He was quite clear in what he was saying, so if your claim is that he was being too vague, it is false. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are lacking, which I wouldn't be too surprised by, since you tried to use the word "obscurantism" completely out of context. And he certainly wasn't opposing the increase or spread of knowledge.

So, what was the point you were trying to make, exactly?

I'm saying he's obscuring meaningful ethical distinctions and principles with a bunch of bullshit.

Furthermore, I wonder how many relationships you two have had between the two of you. Watching rats fuck in a terrarium is not having a relationship. I never cease to be amazed by Internet Experts pontificate with tenured confidence on relationships and the ethics contained therein.

Cheating on your partner in a committed relationship IS considered immoral in our culture. One doesn't have to have official social or legal rituals proscribing it in order to discourage and disclaim it. What an idiotic standard for what is or is not immoral.