Log in

No account? Create an account
29 July 2008 @ 05:11 pm
Most people on my friendslist are no doubt already aware of Orson Scott Card's disintegration into a foaming homophobic imperialist asshole, but even for OSC this is special: advocating the overthrow of the government over gay marriage.
Stephanie: Zoe--  Gunslingerallthelivesofme on July 30th, 2008 12:19 am (UTC)

I have a friend who likes some of his books, but it's because of crap like this I can't make myself read them.

"we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken."

All I can hear is, "Those icky icky gays want rights! How dare they? My rights! Mine!"
Lauratavella on July 30th, 2008 05:10 am (UTC)
The sad thing was, that when I was a teenager, for a while he was my favorite author. I drifted away from that as his books... curdled is the word I'd use. Still, it was quite a shock the first time I came across his Sunstone article (aka "we should put some of the gays in jail to keep the others scared and hidden!")
Velvet Macevelvet_mace on July 30th, 2008 12:35 am (UTC)
You know, it makes me wonder that some guys do that: go from being fairly reasonable to just falling into a pit of frothing paranoia and hate. It makes me wonder if it is some kind of degenerative disease. For some reason the brain stops being able to assess things on their merits and can only view things in the starkest of black and white terms. They stop being able to fact check their ideas on any kind of intellectual level, and are left using their emotions as a guide -- emotions that seem to cycle around endlessly ramping up so that mild dislike becomes intense disgust become abject terror and rage.

Dave Simm took a similar flight into the land of insanity.

Of course OSC's arguments make no rational sense whatsoever because they are all built on the unyielding premise that his masculinity must never ever be challenged from any source, no matter how tangentially.
Confessions of a Strange Loopwebbob on July 30th, 2008 12:53 am (UTC)
Card has been pretty deranged on some of these subjects since at least his early days as a writer. I can't recall the title of the story of his where a guy is done in by aborted foetuses climbing up out if his toilet and gumming him to death (or some other ridiculous method of murder).

I do think he's lost whatever protective impulse made him write his delusions out as horror stories instead of "factual" articles, though.
Alix (Tersa): Kitties--brotherly love (tersa)tersa on July 30th, 2008 12:49 am (UTC)
My favorite part was this:

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

My reaction:

Honey, what you're defining is procreation, not marriage, and government came way before the concept you're railing against.
jadianajadiana on July 30th, 2008 12:49 am (UTC)
He's always appalled me; but I think early on it was simply his being a Mormon. I'm not entirely sure he hasn't always been as he is now, but just has had more time for his opinions to proliferate.
PFblue_condition on July 30th, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if OSC was a foaming homophobic imperalist asshole if he could still write anything worth reading, but he lost that ability a long time ago.
DNAmotleypolitico on July 30th, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
The sad thing is, there are occasional bits of rationality in a select few of his arguments, but they're so wound up in overreaction and all the other claptrap, that it's impossible to read through without choking.

I don't have to agree with the viewpoints, to acknowledge that rational people can agree to disagree, and at least have some degree of self-consistency and rationality in both sides of the argument.

I just wish that those in opposition to gay marriage, were more willing to have less bombastic discourse, so that we could get down to core issues, instead of wrapping it around God, procreation, government, societal health and protection, etc. At core, marriage is one of two things:

A word.
A concept.

If it's the former, the argument is semantic. People disagree on the definition, plain and simple. Marriage is a union between man and woman, or marriage is a union between two (or more) individuals that has an expectation of long term stability and commitment.

If it's a concept, congratulations, you've delved into an area where philosophy, religion, belief structures, and damn all everything enters into the discussion, and it's an argument that has no end, because it's about beliefs instead of logic. Neither side's going to convince the other most likely, and it comes down to what compromise you make, to keep society running.

Card's answer is "fuck you, none" about how much compromise he's willing to endure. People unwilling to compromise about actions (I don't ask people to compromise their beliefs), are just full of fail and make me sad. The word is fanatic.