Oh, so this is what they meant...

[meganbmoore]

So, about a month ago, smillaraaq told me about Orson Scott Card and his views on same sex marriage. At the time, I mostly noticed that he said a homosexual man who wanted to get married could simply marry a woman and have everything he wanted. I politely refrained from mentioning how he was excluding homosexual women from the equation, and consigning a woman to a marriage that would, at best, be peaceful coexistence, but most likely be unhappy and even bitter, and passed it off as "not getting it."

Then matociquala linked to an article on the subject earlier, that, uhm...ok, as near as I can tell, he's saying he will personally attempt to overthrow the government if homosexual marriages are allowed.

Anyway...

Uhm...wow? I can't count the ways I'm offended that have nothing whatsoever to the subjects of homosexuality or homosexual marriages. Actually, as near as I can tell, he has no problems with homosexuality itself (not about to go investigating, you can correct me if I've parsed it wrong in my dazed boggling) just with homosexual marriages. For men, at least. I don't think women have any sexual or romantic feelings in his world save for when their husbands tell them to.

Here, a few excerpts that make me inclined to rant, some for reasons not even connected to the main subject(well, mostly):

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.

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.
 
You know what?  I'm Christian, and I strongly approve of not allowing that, for reasons not connected to abortion itself(I'm not touching that subject, pro or con, at all.)  Why?  Because of this:  shaming, guilting and frightening someone into sharing your beliefs accomplishes nothing.  A person who makes a choice for that reason will never be happy or comfortable with it, and the decision will only last as long as the negative feelings connected with the opposite decision to.  If you want to influence a person, you have to approach them as an equal.  Respect them and the fact that they have an opinion or belief, even if you can't respect the opinion or belief itself.  If you feel strongly enough about something to argue a point or confront someone with it, be prepared to go at it point by point and listen to what they have to say, then make your counterpoint.  An attack that allows no equality, defense, or common ground accomplishes nothing.

Here's the irony: 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.

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

Uhm.  Yeah.  You know, I'm pretty sure marriage as almost anyone defines it exists to legitimize status and legal rights.  Which typically requires a governing body dictating what that constitutes, and creating laws to uphold it.  Marriage is the legalization of the relationship, not the relationship itself.

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

One word:  Adoption.  Think of the homeless kids.  Also...uhm...not everyone wants kids.  Forcing people who don't want a kid to have them will just make everyone-including the kid-miserable.

Married people are doing something that is very, very hard -- to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.
...
Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.
...
Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

Translation of all this:  "Marriage between a man and a woman is beautiful and pure and perfect and equal...but the woman can't complain if he cheats all the time or dumps her and their kids for someone else, because that's natural and right for men."

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.

If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.

Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.

Right then, people are personal property?

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

So...that's bad for heterosexuals, but homosexuals can do that or marry someone they don't love?

Dear JKR:  You know how part of why I can never make myself care enough to read your books is that article I read where you said you didn't know you were writing fantasy until after the first Harry Potter book was out and someone told you it was fantasy?  (And a few other articles that simply made me doubt you could possibly have written the books on your own.)  Well, my opinion on that matter hasn't really changed, but in comparison, I now consider you to be a genius.

Comments

[fairest1.livejournal.com]

Um. If someone showed up to protest my wedding without reason (say, a Jane Eyre thing where they wanted to point out my husband-to-be was already married)-- no matter the gender of my partner -- I'd be pretty pissed off.

Marriage -- as I see it -- at its heart, is just about two people who love each other dearly. Polygamy I'm a bit iffy on (mostly due to hearing about some bad examples), but it's supported by the bible, so that's another kettle of fish entirely.

Oh, and your complaint about JKR -- at least she's better than Margaret Atwood, who wrote a science fiction novel and made numerous statements saying it wasn't science fiction.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

I think that was more a marketing choice than snobbishness about genre.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

JKR is kind of why I don't read many articles by or about authors whose stuff I'm thinking about checking out. I could never tell if she just wasn't smart enough to realize there were several blatant pop fiction sources chunks of her work seemed to be lifted from (all the way to her lead being a physical copy-including, I think, the scar-of a Neil Gaiman character) and what genre she was writing and using every imaginable trope of, or if she just didn't respect the genre.