Orson Scott Card ranting against gay marriage

[No Sad Endings]

Orson Scott Card ranting like a fucktard on the issue of gay marriage. :( I'm disappointed.

I wasn't sure whether to put this in SD or here, but I settled on here. So. Yeah. Discuss.

[No Sad Endings]

So I guess I'm a fucktard for disagreeing with you about abortion then. Also, the guy who wrote the original editorial was being a smug ass too. I thought OSC showed a little more humility than the guy who wrote the article, actually.

Um. No. I just *said* it wasn't because of his points, but because of his attitude.

And uh... what? Orson scott card DID write the article...

[margot]

Fuck people who I would be hurting in no way thinking they have the right to impose their theocratic beliefs on me.

[Samurai Drifter]

Um. No. I just *said* it wasn't because of his points, but because of his attitude.

I didn't see anything more "smug" about his attitude than the guy who wrote the original editorial. In fact, the original author basically said that everyone who opposed gay marriage was a "barbarian" who was trying to take away people's rights, and OSC just said that everyone deserved a vote, even "dumb people" like himself.

And no, wasn't the letter in response to the article displayed on the site...? :huh:

[No Sad Endings]

I didn't see anything more "smug" about his attitude than the guy who wrote the original editorial. In fact, the original author basically said that everyone who opposed gay marriage was a "barbarian" who was trying to take away people's rights, and OSC just said that everyone deserved a vote, even "dumb people" like himself.

And no, wasn't the letter in response to the article displayed on the site...?

Um... I'm confused as to what you're talking about. Orson Scott card didn't write the letter. Orson Scott Card wrote the original article.

[Samurai Drifter]

Fuck people who I would be hurting in no way thinking they have the right to impose their theocratic beliefs on me.

You can say that all you want, and I agree, but the decision should be reached by the whole of society rather than it being forced on people who don't want it. That's not the way to maintain peace in the country.

Um... I'm confused as to what you're talking about. Orson Scott card didn't write the letter. Orson Scott Card wrote the original article.

Huh. I'm confused. If the letter wasn't written by him and the original article was, than he was acting like a jerk.

[darkon]

You can say that all you want, and I agree, but the decision should be reached by the whole of society rather than it being forced on people who don't want it. That's not the way to maintain peace in the country.

I agree with that. It's just elitist to say that certain people should have a say and others shouldn't. The entire whole of people should have a say. And if you want to sway people to your side, use propaganda. All's fair.

[margot]

what exactly is being forced on people here. It's not like they're forced to get a gay marriage.

[margot]

I'm not dense, and I know that if you stop a voting system it leads to horrible things but zzz pisses me off.

[Mithrandir]

I got to the point where he said that men and women serve fundamentally different social imperatives. Then I decided that he was complete jackass.

[darkon]

what exactly is being forced on people here. It's not like they're forced to get a gay marriage.

Nothing. People just feel it'll "destroy" marriage or it is a "slippery slope" or something.

[Mithrandir]

Well... I don't really have much of a belief in democracy.

I mean, it's the best thing we have right now, but there's got to be soemthing better.

[No Sad Endings]

Fuck people who I would be hurting in no way thinking they have the right to impose their theocratic beliefs on me.

Well that's not really the issue OSC's presenting - he's not trying to impose any theocratic beliefs here, he's saying that 1)Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, thus to allow gay people to marry would be conflicting with that purpose and 2)that if the decision to allow gay people to marry is to be made, it should be done so through the democratic process, and he sees the business in Massachusetts as bystepping the democratic process. Not that I agree with him in the least, of course. >.<

But. Um. This is all getting a little in depth here, and I made a <a href="http://www.accelerated-e.com/index.php?showtopic=477&view=getnewpost">thread.</a>

[margot]

aughhh and then I say that the majority of heterosexual marriages are mockeries anyway and that gay marriage can't lead to people marrying children or animals because they can't properly consent and that there's nothing wrong with polyamorous/incestous marriages and then they say back some stupid crap and then I have to murder them.

[No Sad Endings]

I got to the point where he said that men and women serve fundamentally different social imperatives. Then I decided that he was complete jackass.

...did he say that? -_-; I must admit I did not read the whole thing, because after about the second little section it started getting on my nerves so much I just skimmed the rest.

[Samurai Drifter]

2)that if the decision to allow gay people to marry is to be made, it should be done so through the democratic process, and he sees the business in Massachusetts as bystepping the democratic process. Not that I agree with him in the least, of course. >.<

But... it is bypassing the democratic process. And that isn't a good thing.

[darkon]

But... it is bypassing the democratic purpose. And that isn't a good thing.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind the courts come about because of votes. People vote in the people who select who is in the courts.

[margot]

Well that's not really the issue OSC's presenting - he's not trying to impose any theocratic beliefs here, he's saying that 1)Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, thus to allow gay people to marry would be conflicting with that purpose and 2)that if the decision to allow gay people to marry is to be made, it should be done so through the democratic process, and he sees the business in Massachusetts as bystepping the democratic process. Not that I agree with him in the least, of course. >.<

But. Um. This is all getting a little in depth here, and I made a <a href="http://www.accelerated-e.com/index.php?showtopic=477&view=getnewpost">thread.</a>

Augh I hate that procreation argument. Who says that marriage is for the purpose of procreation? Who the fuck decided that? If I get married it'll be to be bonded with that person. And that means you shouldn't let infertile couples/couples who don't plan to have kids get married.

[No Sad Endings]

You can say that all you want, and I agree, but the decision should be reached by the whole of society rather than it being forced on people who don't want it. That's not the way to maintain peace in the country.

Huh. I'm confused. If the letter wasn't written by him and the original article was, than he was acting like a jerk.

Yes, the article was written by OSC. He writes a column for a newspaper in my state.

Well... I don't really have much of a belief in democracy.

I mean, it's the best thing we have right now, but there's got to be soemthing better.

I agree.

But... it is bypassing the democratic process. And that isn't a good thing.

...so you would agree, then, with OSC, when he says it was right and just that slavery wasn't abolished but by the long, arduous democratic process? While slaves are meanwhile suffering, because there hasn't yet been a consensus from the public that they are human beings and deserving of the same rights as the rest of society?

Come on. Just because millions of people believe a group of people shouldn't have certain rights doesn't mean it's actually JUST to deprive those people of those rights.

[Samurai Drifter]

Not necessarily. Keep in mind the courts come about because of votes. People vote in the people who select who is in the courts.

Not the Supreme Court, the president appoints the members of that. And the Supreme Court pretty much just over turns any judgement they don't like.

...so you would agree, then, with OSC, when he says it was right and just that slavery wasn't abolished but by the long, arduous democratic process? While slaves are meanwhile suffering, because there hasn't yet been a consensus from the public that they are human beings and deserving of the same rights as the rest of society?

Yes. As heartless as it sounds, it's the best way to keep peace. It failed there, and when the north tried to forcefully apply their laws on the south and resort to violence instead of democracy we ended up with one of the most bloody wars in American history. Which is worse, letting slaves suffer while we work it out democratically, or have hundreds of thousands on all sides die?

Of course, slavery wasn't the only problem that led to the civil war; it was kind of a "worst comes to worst" situation.

[No Sad Endings]

Augh I hate that procreation argument. Who says that marriage is for the purpose of procreation? Who the fuck decided that? If I get married it'll be to be bonded with that person. And that means you shouldn't let infertile couples/couples who don't plan to have kids get married.

That's what I keep wondering.

I grew up in a society that percieves marriage as something that happens when you decide you want to spend your life with someone. Yes, the evolution of the social construct of marriage was to create a stable system of procreation and raising of offspring. However - like you said, if marriage is only for that purpose, then why do we let infertile couples, and couples that profess to have no interest in procreating marry?

[Mithrandir]

Not the Supreme Court, the president appoints the members of that. And the Supreme Court pretty much just over turns any judgement they don't like.

But who appoints the president?

the electoral college!

and who tells the electoral college how to vote?

the people!

That's what I keep wondering.

I grew up in a society that percieves marriage as something that happens when you decide you want to spend your life with someone. Yes, the evolution of the social construct of marriage was to create a stable system of procreation and raising of offspring. However - like you said, if marriage is only for that purpose, then why do we let infertile couples, and couples that profess to have no interest in procreating marry?

I think he covers that point near the end of the article.

[Samurai Drifter]

I don't think marriage is only for the purpose of procreation... sex, on the other hand, is. I think it's stupid when people argue that sex is just a way to be "close" to the other person. It's a highly biological thing, it evolved so we could reproduce. Evolution wasn't taking emotions into consideration.

But who appoints the president?

the electoral college!

and who tells the electoral college how to vote?

the people!

...true, but Supreme Court members span a number of presidential administrations, so you end up with a bunch of people having chosen them. You'll probably argue that they've still been chosen by the people. That's not really true, but unless you want me to elaborate I won't. It's a complicated argument and trying to figure out how to word it makes my head hurt. >.<

[No Sad Endings]

No, biologically sex also serves the purpose of pair bonding.

[margot]

I don't think marriage is only for the purpose of procreation... sex, on the other hand, is.

I think unless one has been in love with someone, they can't really understand sex as an emotional connection/outlet.