I don't know when I have been so angry! Sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card has revealed himself as an ignorant homophobe with this essay in the Mormon Times. He's all upset over the prospect of gay marriage and goes on about the Constitution and state's rights and the downfall of democracy. Calm down, Cassandra, the world is not going to end!
Thanks to Towelroad for posting about this.
But I am so damned tired of gays being blamed for everything that's wrong with society. Do we really have that much power? Gee, I wish it were true, because I would love to see that Card never sells another book or piece of writing ever again. Sorry, but he doesn't deserve any respect. He calls gays mentally ill, genetic mistakes and insists that no matter how loving our relationships are, they can never compare to heterosexual marriage. Well I don't need to look to historical gay relationships to know that I have something wonderful with my partner. It isn't perfect, but it is worth fighting for, and being with him has made my life wonderful. I'll gladly compare my gay relationship to any marriage Card has or that of any Mormon on Earth.
He may be entitled to his opinion, but if this were about blacks, Jews, women, the disabled or any other minority, Card would be labeled for the ignorant religious fanatic that he is. But it's still ok to heap abuse on gays, in his mind. In fact, I think he's mentally ill. What kind of hatred and fear drives a person to write such things as he has? What have I done to him? Does he even know any gay people?
Card waxes so lovingly about the institution of marriage which we all know has changed over time and has had its share of abuses. He overlooks how governments once forbade different races to marry and even those from different religious faiths.
He wails about schools advocating for tolerance of gays. Oh, heaven forbid we teach tolerance. Without tolerance, we get nutjobs who shoot up churches in Tennessee because they welcome gays. Is that the "democratic" society Card wants to live in? Wasn't the Mormon founder killed by a mob? Wasn't it rumor, fear and ignorance that led to his death and the persecution of Mormons? Apparently, they've learned nothing since the 19th century. Look, if you're worried about your children, put them in a freakin' Christian or private school. The government is not there to promote your beliefs about God!
Card frets that the government is interfering with his life by allowing gay marriage. Well, welcome to my world, Orson! How dare the government tell me my relationship isn't valid? Why should I be loyal to a government that tells me I'm somehow "damaged?" And why should I allow any religion to tell me how I should live? This IS a democracy, and we are free to live as we choose, whether you like it or not.
And I'm glad I'm not a heterosexual woman and unlucky enough to be married to Card. His opinions on sex, marriage and the very purpose of life make it sound like he's some robot. Which makes sense, given his sci-fi bent. Is life just about "maximizing reproductive opportunities?" Just about survival of the species? Hmm, interesting that such a devout Christian could be so, well, Darwinian. Ironic, don't you think?
If that's all life is, kill me now. But I know Card is wrong. Life is a beautiful, grand thing, and gays have much to offer society. He may choose to ignore it, but it's true nonetheless.
Please, go to the Mormon Times and email your disagreement. Go to Card's site and overwhelm his in-box with replies. This kind of hate must stop, and it won't ever stop unless we all do our part.
July 29, 2008
Sci-Fi Author Orson Scott Card's Anti-Gay Rant Appears in Mormon Publication
Posted by Riverwolf, at 7:38 PM
Labels: democracy, gay marriage, gays, Mormons, Orson Scott Card, religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Damn Mormons. Part of why I left that church was because of people like him. There are so many intolerant, close-minded, extremist people in Mormonism.
I will email and leave comments.
Together we can move this country forward despite these knuckle draggers.
That is terrible. What a moron.
I will definitely do my bit and send a comment. I read some of his SF once about 20 years ago (bit strange) but will not do so again.
Sorry to hear of your distressing experience that you posted in the comments at Witches and Scientists, too. Very scary.
Sent an email on both sites.
That's incredibly disappointing.
It's depressing when you find out someone like that is so small-minded, ignorant, and prejudice.
A year or so ago, someone pointed out on their blog that the guy who wrote Wizard of OZ was totally anti Native-American. That was a huge disappointment. But at least in that case you came blame the "ignorant time period" he was born into.
Thanks to everyone for commenting and also to those of you who are spreading the word and voicing your displeasure.
To Dina's point about Baum, the writer of "Oz"--I'm not one to typically "boycott" artists or writers because of their personal views on things. People can be quite creative and talented yet be just as close-minded and full of fear and prejudice. But Card's essay pushed me over the line because he's not just a product of his time or society. He persists in his views despite all sorts of evidence and good sense. The bottom line is that he doesn't care to change, and that's the worst kind of ignorance.
Yikes. What a jerk. I agree, people should be called-out on hateful rhetoric.
must have missed something! This guy is a science fiction writer? I have not seen such poorly written shit in years. It's as if his essay was being spit out by some dinky program from the DOS days. If not so damn sad and hurtful, parts of it would be drop-dead funny. It's as if he'd culled every single intolerant talking point spewed from the mouths of homophobes going back to the Pleistocene era. Some high points:
...I have been called a "homophobe" for years.
No shit, Sherlock! I wonder why that is?
...Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman...
Yes, marriage is permanent, older than government, older than God, oh wait, it sometimes is 'semipermanent'
...In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality...
Oh thank goodness, you are going to talk 'seriously and candidly!' As I suspected, this piece is a joke.
...Married people are doing something that is very, very hard --
'Very, very hard'? More like very, very impossible.
...When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.
OK, I defy anyone on this planet to make sense of the above!
...That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.
They'll be fine, if only left alone by brain dead morons like this guy.
...Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property...
Ok, that we can agree on...women are property! Now, excuse me while I root around for my bottle of strychnine.
Really, I could go on. I'm really enjoying tearing this guy a new one. But I gotta get to sleep. Riverwolf, thanx for posting about this clown.
I know, Genexs, there were so many ridiculous and knuckle-headed points in that essay. And I'd like to see any "science" on the causes of homosexuality. I recently completed graduate school and one of my papers focused on that specific topic. And the answer? There isn't any! There have been a handful of studies that have produced some intriguing connections but no cause. And these studies have not been duplicated, which is essential in demonstrating validity. Additionally, no one seems to be investing time or grant funds to this particular area. But I'm sure Mr. Card has been brainwashed by the Mormon literature on the topic.
The situation is dripping with irony. Mormonism is based on plagiarized science fiction.
Well, first of all, I don't know if you've ever read any of Card's science fiction. I have. A lot of it. One of the reasons it is so popular is that it is univerally sympathetic to the human condition. He has numerous characters over his books of varying faiths and sexual orientations-- Catholics, Muslims, even loving homosexual couples. All of these relationships are dealt with honestly and with warmth and compassion and even (seeming) joy. There is no homophobia in his books, no negative critique of homosexual relationships as far as I can tell. In fact, the exact opposite is true. He is very sympathetic to homosexuality, and has several main characters who you come to know and love who are either gay or bisexual.
I know that is hard to believe, but it is true.
HOWEVER....
THIS is really what makes this essay of his so infuriating to those of us who love his fiction. It leads one to NOT TRUST him! How can someone write such sympathetic, truly heartfelt and MOVING fiction, and then come up with something 180 degrees from that in real life? Apparently, his fiction is just an exercise for him into studying the human condition. I guess that's good. That's what fiction is--- and he doesn't use his fiction to grind the axe of his beliefs.
But that he has such wrong headed and actually hate-filled beliefs in real life is really disturbing.
Along similar lines, one of his main characters in a well known book of his is a Catholic priest. Having grown up Catholic, I know that he writes sympathetically and with understanding of the good parts of the Catholic faith (faith, compassion, selflessness-- and yes yes, I know the Catholic Church has some wrongheaded beliefs--- that isn't my point.) However, in REAL LIFE he believes that Catholicism is absolutely WRONG and perhaps even EVIL.
Finally, what I wanted to say was this:
It's fine if you want to define marriage in a biological or "sacred" way as a man/woman relationship. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is when a SECULAR GOVERNMENT gives man/woman marriage FINANCIAL BENEFITS over other types of relationships. Then it no longer is a religious matter, is it? It is bias.
Call man/woman marriage whatever you want to call it. Just don't have SECULAR governments legitimize it by giving it tax breaks, health benefit breaks, and other monetary benefits.
Or, if you ARE going to do that, those benefits should be available to all couples who decide their relationships are serious enough.
That's all I have to say about that.
Anonymous: thanks for posting, and you did a great job of explaining why I find Card so disturbing. As a writer myself, it makes sense that Card's work would include various types of people. That makes it interesting. But if he's truly exploring the human condition, you'd think he'd learn something along the way. How can you not learn when you try and get inside a character's head? You have to understand them, feel what they feel, sympathize with their motivations--even if they're not choices you would make. While you might not agree with a character (or real person) it should at least make you a more sympathetic human being.
But not Card--his dogma has created some impenetrable crusty shell around the man's heart! And that's scary. I actually feel sorry for him.
And yes, religions should be able to define marriage as they like--but secular, democratic governments? Once you start singling out certain groups for certain privileges while denying those same benefits to others--because of religious reasons--you have violated the very principles on which you claim to stand.
You queermos can have your civil unions and Ru Paul and sweaty bareback anal... marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
I read OSC's full article, and not once in the entire text did he say anything about not liking gay people, or advocating for the maltreatment of anyone due to their sexual orientation. He is, in fact, against changing the definition of a word. Marriage, by definition, is the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law. The "traditional" family unit has been the fundamental core unit of civilized society for millennia. That's right, millennia. Yes, there have been countless same-sex traditions and partnerships throughout history, but not once have I read an account where they tried to call it something that it clearly wasn't. A marriage.
Millions believe that marriage is the very highest level of a relationship between one man and one woman that can be achieved in this life. It is sacred. Holy. Righteous. I believe that to be true as well, even though I haven't always treated it as such. I know many married people who hold man/woman marriage to be sacrosanct, and just as many others, if not more, who piss all over it. Citing the latter doesn't give any "anti-man/woman-marriage" propagandist the right to change it to suit their own political agendas, especially if they do not show deference to the former. Failure to do so only shows their own contempt for the institution.
Before you start bashing me as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" because I don't subscribe to the current fashionable rhetoric of tolerance, you should probably know that I have many GLBT friends who are very dear to me. I served in a war-time military with many of them. Even though I disagree with their beliefs, I have nothing against them as individual human beings. In fact, many of them are better people than most of the self-proclaimed Christians I know who believe that the GLBT community are sinners and going to hell, etc. My friends and I have rational, thought-provoking, civil (okay, sometimes heated) debate where we both try to understand the points of view of the other. There is no yelling, no wailing that either side is maligned because the other doesn't agree with their ideologies. There is mutual respect, and disagreement, and sometimes, even enlightenment. One of my lesbian friends told me once, "I don't want to take marriage away from you and the woman you love, I just want to have something just as binding for myself and the woman I love. I've never cared what it's called. But it should allow for the same treatment from the government and my employer."
...continued...
...continued...
I say all that to tell you this: I agree with both sides. Stop rolling your eyes and hear me out. The GLBT community should not advocate to change the definition of any idea just because they disagree with it. To do so only opens yourself up for the same treatment. On the other hand, however, the "conservatives" need to understand that here in this great nation of freedom that has advocated "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" (albeit, imperfectly), there is still a disparity. But that disparity has nothing to do with the definition of a word. I have no problem with other unmarried men/women cohabitating, with same-sex relationships, or with gender alterations. It's all wrapped up in that whole "PURSUIT of happiness" thing. I think what I'm trying to say here, and most "conservatives" will agree with me, is that you can do what you want within the boundaries of the law. Just please don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union. Call it a domestic partnership. Tolerance, by definition, is a two-way street. So, please don't violently stomp on something that millions of other people hold sacred, just so that you can have the same "benefits." Let's face it, most companies don't require you to be married to qualify for "family benefits." As for the tax laws, well, change them to read "legally united and filing jointly" or some other such verbiage.
I'm not going to try to convert you to my ideologies, to do so would insult you as a fellow human being. I'm not always right. But I believe in these things. And I also believe that God will be my judge. Not for how many I converted to my point of view, but how I attended to my own individual enlightenment. Heck, Christ said "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt 22:39), not "love thy neighbor only if he is like thyself."
Ultimately, I try to walk in the shoes of the opposition every day. I find that it is harder and harder as the nation becomes increasingly polarized, and the vitriolic, hateful rhetoric on both sides escalates. But try I will. I only ask that you give me the same courtesy. I don't know if you hold anything in your life to be sacred, something that defines you to your core, but if you do, ask yourself this: what would you do if someone told you that they were going to change it to suit their own purposes, and in doing so, it would cease to be the very thing you revered?
Ben, thanks for your comment. Ok, so I'll take your challenge to ask myself what I would do it someone wanted to change something I hold sacred to suit their own purposes. First, I would ask myself why I hold it so sacred and why the other person feels a change is necessary. I would ask about their intentions and whether the change desired would, at its core, change what I hold sacred. If I couldn't find any serious reason to resist the change, then I would welcome the change--and change my mind instead.
You assume that gays and lesbians marrying will alter what marriage means. Marriage is about love and support, and I hold it sacred. I've been in a 16-year relationship that I consider sacred. Legally we are not "married," but I consider this union to be sacred with or without a piece of paper filed in some Register of Deeds office. You obviously believe that allowing gays and lesbians to marry violates the essence of marriage--and there's where we disagree. You focus on the genitalia and the gender rather than on love and the heart. Ironic, don't you think? It's ironic because so many folks accuse gay people of being sex-obsessed, but it's actually the other way around. It's sad, too, that people are so hung up on "who's the man" and gender roles rather than on how much love is shared. That's what I have in my "marriage," and that is sacred, regardless of how it's been defined over time. Things change, definitions change, the world changes every day--get used to it.
I'm Mormon and one of my best friends is gay, so I'm just saying not all Mormons are "close minded."
Most disagree with the idea, but I am okay with gay relationships. We all have the right to choose, and there are consequences for your actions, for example, ranting about gays.
Post a Comment