Orson Scott Card is a Motherfucking Bigot


Lookit the smug bastard! Time to take him down a peg!

Lookit the smug bastard! Time to take him down a peg!

Orson Scott Card is an author many geeky sci-fi types have heard of, and most have read. I haven’t read any of his stuff, but one of my friends is a big fan, and I’ve heard decent things about his various books, especially Ender’s Game. He also wrote a book where conservatives in the USA fought a civil war against liberals. Yeah, that’s likely. Wonder which side won?

Anyhow, it is with a heavy heart that I must tar this man as an intolerant bigot, homophobic, un-American, religious nut-job and all around jackass. I do this with no great enthusiasm, but with a sense of nescessity, since he’s put his nose into a debate where it didn’t belong, and he took the wrong side.

See, he wrote an article in something called The Mormon Times [edit: Now known as the Deseret News. The link I have now links to their site with the same article]. Hmmm… I could be mistaken here, but I thought the Morons Mormons didn’t want to be called such? Are we supposed to call them latter day saints, or something?

Anyhow, in the article, Mr Card, who seems to be under the mistaken impression he lives in theocracy, had certain… unfortunate… things to say about gay marriage. Apparently it’s destroying democracy.

In the next few paragraphs you’re going to see quite a lot of foul language from me, as you might’ve noticed from the title of the article, as well as several insults directed at Orson Scott Card. I don’t do this lightly. I pride myself on holding above the fray and being polite to all. But when someone writes an article that Himmler, Fred Phelps and other evil-minded people throughout history would approve of, what else can I do?

Needless to say, by the way, I’m not ever going to buy any of Mr Card’s books, nor see any movies based on his material (thankfully Ender’s Game the movie is in development hell). I encourage my readers to do the same, and not support this fool in any way, shape or form.

That said, let’s move onto this evil little article, and destroy it for the trash it is.

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Er… well, yes, judges are striking down such laws. Most recently in California. See, Mr Card, that’s their job. That’s what they do. If they find laws that aren’t Constitutional, they’re supposed to say so and put an end to those laws. It’s part of what we call “Checks and Balances” in our three-branch system of government. It’s how we ended up with court rulings like Virginia v Loving, and Brown v Board of Education. Just because most of the general public wants something to be done in a particular way that doesn’t mean it’s legal for it to be done like that. This is just basic civics, Mr Card. Perhaps a refresher course in the subject is in order?

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

Right, because striking down a law saying that it’s ok to give people all the rights associated with marriage through a civil union, and then call it a civil union rather than marriage, for no reason other than discrimination is clearly unreasonable.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Oh, very nice. Now he’s equated gay marriage with abortion. You hear that, America? Gay marriage = abortion, and we all know abortion = baby killing! So anytime gays get married, babies die. Oh, and I’m not aware of any law that allows a doctor to kill a baby mid-birth. But what the hell. When the facts aren’t on your side, why not just make shit up?

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.

If you are blocking the entrance, I’m sure it is and should be. You can’t even stand there and read Darwin if you’re blocking the entrance.

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show “gay marriages” as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

Yeah, god forbid your children should grow up to be tolerant of people different than they are. I’m sure had he been this age fifty years ago, he’d probably be railing against the notion of blacks and whites getting married and being shown as loving couples (or just the Loving couple).

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as “mentally ill”?

Uhm. Never? And it’s not an offical term in the mental health community, though I believe “paranoid” is, Mr Card. Just saying.

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the ’70s and ’80s, 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.

Why, yes! And I’m sure blacks initially were willing to say, “Yes, massa! You just free us from bein’ slaves and we’uns gonna be right pleased!”, but then they got all uppity and started to ask for the same rights as everyone else. Unreasonable bastards! Who would’ve suspected that once you start giving people some of the rights everyone else has, soon they’d want the rest?!

And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against “gay marriage” being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups — RICO laws, for instance.

Again, “never” is my guess. You can say whatever you want. It’s perfectly legal and protected, and if someone was prosecuting you for it, I’d be the first to go after them. As long as you’re just talking, and not, say, going around shooting gay people, ala the types that shoot abortion providers. Holding views and saying things is a different kettle of fish from going out and engaging in actionable crimes.

Oh, and before anyone tries to say, “He could be talking about hate crime laws making what he’s saying illegal!”, well, yes, he could be. But that would be unConstitutional and unlikely.

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.

What, me rape?

What, me rape?

Here’s the irony: Marriage as it stands now is largely a creation of government that gives married couples extensive legal rights and protections that are not enjoyed by people who are single, or who are in a commited relationship with each other that is anything other than marriage. Its meaning is not universal. In some religious groups, I won’t cite any particular names here, Mr Card, writing for The Mormon Times, the ideal form of marriage is, or has been, one man and several women. Not pointing any fingers here. Well, except maybe the middle one.

If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into “greenery” and all our parking lots into “parks”?

This is cute, but has nothing to do with anything, since colors are not, in any way shape or form, anything that is affected by government laws. Well, I take that back. I understand the legal specifications of the American flag are given using various pantone numbers. Oh, but what if those numbers get changed? Suddenly the asphalt has a different pantone number! Eeek, it’s the Rapture!

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

True. They will always be different. But they should still be treated with equality by the government.

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.

Again, true, but last I heard, living in a house and cooking your food wasn’t “natural”. Unless you live in a cave and eat your food raw, you need to shut the fuck up on this.

Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.

Hey, sailor!

Hey, sailor!

There are other animals that engage in extensive homosexual behavior including, believe it or not, giraffes. I think I need to develop a new sex act to go along with the term, “long necking”.

Anyhow, onto his next bit of whining:

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.

My reply: Married gay people are doing something that is very, very hard — to combine the lives of two people of the same gender, with all their quirks and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.

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.

So a marriage without children is validated by the presence of a marriage with children. So a marriage built around love, like, say, two men in love, is validated by the presence of other marriages with love. Great!

When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.

When a homosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits. Gosh, it’s easy to just cut and paste these things and use his own words against him. It requires even less thought than he used when he put together his article!

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.

Uhm. Ok. Yes, you can have marriage without property, and property without marriage. I’m single, after all. But since he doesn’t want gays to marry, does this mean he doesn’t want them owning property, either? I’m guessing he just wants them all “re-educated” and converted to being straight, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, I think we can safely agree that letting gays marry probably won’t do anything to change property laws.

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.

Yes, and gays also have the right to a stable, faithful relationship.

We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it’s a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.

Divorce is “no-fault,” easily obtained on any pretext.

Slight kudos to him here for pointing out that a lot of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. I have no problem with this, frankly, and I think a lot of that is caused by people being pressured to get married when they have no business doing so.

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.

Mr Card, do you feel contempt for, say, Arizona? Do you sit around in your home thinking, “I hate Arizona so much! I’m glad I don’t live there!” No? Then why on earth do you think that when people choose not to get married, it’s because they feel “contempt” for marriage? Perhaps they simply feel they aren’t ready to rush into something that might end in, you know, divorce. Which you don’t like.

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.

Yes, if only men were allowed to have many wives, then that might not happen. I wonder what religions out there might allow such a thing, now or in the past? Surely not. Oh, well. Back to an article in The Mormon Times written by someone who live in Utah and is a practicing Mormon!

With “gay marriage,” the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

Yeah, just like how letting Jews join country clubs has destroyed those fine institutions!

Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

Well, ignoring the blatant, raw sexism here, I’ll simply point out that a gay marriage can contain all these things, just with the genders being the same. So there. Nayh. :P

Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how “fair” and “compassionate” we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.

Well, there’s certainly an economic benefit to the marriage industry. Can you imagine how much they must pee their pants with happiness at the idea of having 10% more marriages? Especially big, lavish, gay weddings? Plus, of course, there’s the benefit of stabilizing relationships.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

How, exactly, does gay marriage mean that our government and society are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in our children? Oh, he must be one of those idiots who believes homosexuality is a choice. Well, yes, I certainly choose to be bisexual rather than take the easy path through life!

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

Wow. I just have nothing to say to this. Oh, except this: Remember how the last Mormon uprising turned out?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

What you fail to understand, Mr Card, is that you live in a country where judges are allowed to make descisions like this. If you don’t like it, tough shit. Work to get the Constitution amended. Since we all know that won’t happen, fucking suck it up and deal with it you whiny, infantile, little bitch.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Oh, bring it on, you intolerant, hate-filled jackass! Fucking bring it on! You’ll get your ass kicked five ways from Sunday and rightly so. Why not move to some place like Iraq, where gays aren’t allowed to marry and are, instead, rounded up and killed? Or better yet, Iran, or Saudia Arabia, or any of those other little theocracies out there. Sounds like you’d be far more at home in one of those places than you are here, in a country that prides itself on freedom and tolerance.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Yeah, that pesky, insane Constitution. The one that keeps Mormons, like you, from being treated with anything other than equality by the government. The one that makes sure you have the right to believe what you want, say what you want and do what you want. The one that protects your right to spew this hateful bile from your lips. And the one that protects my right to call you a motherfucking, ass-licking, hate-spewing, intolerant, credulous, hidebound, delusional, religious zealot with the same level of critical-thinking ability as a concussed kitten in a tornado.

FUCK YOU, YOU HATE-MONGER!

Mr Card basically calls for a violent overthrow of the government (“I will act to destroy that government and bring it down…”, as he puts it), and replacing it with something that will pass only the laws he wants. Words like “fascist” spring to mind. I mean, that’s what it is when you’re not willing to abide by the rule of law and think the courts ought to just be ignored, right?

Also, while he doesn’t strike me as the sort of person who would have been rounding up the gays and putting them on the trains in 1940, he does strike me as the sort of person who would’ve been telling the SS where they were hiding.

Ya know, also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I have nothing against Mormons as individuals. One of my best friend when I was in high school was a Mormon. What I have a problem with is their stupid religion which, even by the standard of most religions, is pretty dumb. All religious beliefs are, mind you, but with the LDS’ers it seems to be particularly egregious. I’d place it second only to Scientology in the list of Stupidest Widely Practiced Religions.

I’m done with this jackass.

About these ads

31 Responses to “Orson Scott Card is a Motherfucking Bigot”

  1. Evo Says:

    Gay marriage is an abomination and a logical impossibility.

    • guy Says:

      Gay marriage already exists, in some states and in other countries.

      The fact that it exists contradicts the (moronic) statement that it is a logical impossibility.

  2. Chris Says:

    Well, I can understand the abomination part, though not surprisingly I disagree. However, “logical impossibility”? How do you figure? If nothing else, it actually, you know, happens, in two states here in the USA, will happen in two more states at least by the end of year, and happens in several countries around the world. I don’t see how any of that equals a logical impossibility.

    • Elliott Carl Says:

      well, even so, by the currently excepted (mostly) definition of marriage it is impossible. To make it possible changes the definition of marriage into something completely different. To except that new definition would make married couples into something else, since they would no longer be married by the old definition but instead by the new one.

      • arthurthepanther Says:

        First, I believe you mean ‘accept’, not except.
        Second, ‘by the currently accepted standard of marriage’ – where? Canada? Great Britain? Latvia? Or are we talking about he good old U.S.A, where bigotry is legal?
        third – no, not impossible, just not (technically) marriage. It is in everything but name, and has been since before you knew what marriage was… before you were even born. quite a few old ‘bachelors’ living together in victorian england were gay men in relationships. Most likely they were long term, faithful relationships, too – it being illegal to be gay in that day and age, catting around was ill-advised.

  3. John Gathercole Says:

    Came here from Daylight Atheism. Merciless article :) I’ve been reading Orson Scott Card’s columns for eight years and I’ve seen the descent into insanity firsthand. I think the best word to describe him would be fascist, rather than theocrat. During the Bush Administration he repeatedly argued that people should obey The President (always referred to like that) not because he was doing the right thing, or the religiously correct thing, but merely because he was the President and Commander-In-Chief and therefore the Leader. I always thought it was funny how he sides with the fundamentalist Protestants who have nothing but contempt for his Mormonism, as was seen with the reaction to Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

  4. Wednesday Says:

    Here from your link on Daylight atheism.

    I’d forgotten Card’s claim that there’s only one definition of marriage, which is bullshit coming from a Mormon. (And not just because of the religion’s history of polygamy.)

    Because even if we forget the FLDS, even if we pretend polygyny and polyandry and women taking wives in their deceased husband’s name don’t exist, and pretend that Canada, the Netherlands, and all the liberal religious groups that have been marrying gays longer than Massachusetts don’t exist… heck, even if we pretend the world consists of no one but heterosexual Southern Baptists and Mormons, it’s still not true. And that’s because of celestial marriage.

    Mormons recognize two types of marriage: marriage outside the Mormon church, which ends at death, and a marriage performed at a Mormon temple in which the bride and groom are eternally sealed to each other and which continues into the afterlife.

    Now, it’s entirely possible for individual Mormons to reject this distinction, and it’s possible OSC is one of them. However, his article is written for The Mormon Times, and hence a presumably mostly-Mormon audience. So even if the majority of Mormons happen to personally reject the celestial marriage/ordinary marriage distinction, it’s an audience that will be aware that the official religion’s doctrine holds this distinction.

    So it’s outright dishonest of Card to suggest that his audience should take arms against the “tyranny” of equal rights on the grounds that marriage has only one definition.

  5. Chris Says:

    Yeah, the Mormons are the last ones who should be bitching about a changing definition of marriage. I’m sure they’re still bitter about having to give up their many wives (well, those that actually have), but that’s no reason to try and make it bad for the rest of us.

  6. kevin Says:

    crazy old coot. he’s kind of being hypocritical here, i’ve read a great deal of his books, and he goes into topics expresses opinions in favor of things that the logic he’s using here completely contradicts.

    that’s a true sell out.

  7. Jonesy Says:

    Have you ever heard of “partial-birth abortion”? I think this procedure constitutes “mid-birth”. But what the hell. When the facts aren’t on your side, why not just make shit up?

    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

  8. Chris Says:

    Sure, one can say that constitutes a “mid-birth” abortion, and if that was what he was going for, ok. But isn’t that pretty much illegal except under certain very specific circumstances?

    • Elliott Carl Says:

      “Oh, very nice. Now he’s equated gay marriage with abortion. You hear that, America? Gay marriage = abortion”
      wow, do you honestly believe that Orson Scott Card thinks that gay marriage and abortion are the same thing just because they are both legislation that he is opposed to? If so, good job man, way to set up that straw man and beat it to bits. We are all very impressed at your mad hay whacking skills…

      • Elliott Carl Says:

        ha, meant to just put that as a regular reply, makes no sense as a reply to this specific comment.

      • Chris Says:

        Actually, my comment was more-or-less in jest. I’d hoped the punchline of “Every time gays get married, babies die” would be a tip-off. :)

  9. Ender's Game reader Says:

    look, people have different opinions. Like you think Mr. Card is a “Motherfucking Bigot”, I quote. Other people might think that he is one of the best writers they have seen. And with the marriage part, the law is just saying they can’t call it marriage. They can make up a new word for it. Just the majority wants marriage to mean only including a male and female. If you didn’t know that then you should not be talking about it, especially against someone else. I didn’t read your whole article because after the first twelve paragraphs I took it all for bullshit. I’m just saying that just because you think one way doesn’t mean you are right. Truth, in a way, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as truth in the way we think.
    THIS IS A COUNTRY WITH RULES THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW

    this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down
    I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

    this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
    sorry if I have offended anyone

  10. Ender's Game reader Says:

    look, people have different opinions. Like you think Mr. Card is a “Motherfucking Bigot”, I quote. Other people might think that he is one of the best writers they have seen. And with the marriage part, the law is just saying they can’t call it marriage. They can make up a new word for it. Just the majority wants marriage to mean only including a male and female. If you didn’t know that then you should not be talking about it, especially against someone else. I didn’t read your whole article because after the first twelve paragraphs I took it all for bullshit. I’m just saying that just because you think one way doesn’t mean you are right. Truth, in a way, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as truth in the way we think.
    THIS IS A COUNTRY WITH RULES THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW

    this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down
    I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

    this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
    sorry if I have offended anyone
    yeah a 7th grader

  11. Ender's Game reader Says:

    srry i forgot sumthin in the first one

  12. Ender's Game reader Says:

    no i am not a morman

  13. Chris Says:

    Like you think Mr. Card is a “Motherfucking Bigot”, I quote. Other people might think that he is one of the best writers they have seen.

    Both these things can be true at the same time. Clearly, he’s an anti-gay bigot, and I’ve also heard from other people (I’ve not read his works myself), that he’s quite a good writer. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

    And with the marriage part, the law is just saying they can’t call it marriage. They can make up a new word for it.

    So gay marriage is ok as long as it isn’t called marriage? But then that means the only reason not to call it marriage is discrimination against gays. That’s been the basis of at least a couple court rulings that have allowed gay marriage in this country, including one in California.

    The Constitution doesn’t appear to allow that sort of blatant legal discrimination. If you’re going to allow marriage in anything but name, and there’s no compelling reason other than “lots of people don’t like it”, not to use that name, then that’s not allowed.

    Just the majority wants marriage to mean only including a male and female.

    Well, here’s the way the government works in this country (I’m assuming you’re from the USA, but I don’t know for sure): Basically the Constitution exists in part to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority”.

    As an example, even if 90% of the country thinks it would be a good idea to, say, ban construction of all minarets outside mosques in this country, still be illegal for the government to do so. There would need to be a Constitutional amendment and those are (rightly), very hard to do.

    What the majority wants matters, but only to a point. The majority has, in the past, wanted slavery, denied women the right to vote, believed that a man’s family was his property and forced children to pray in public schools.

    The majority is often wrong.

    this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down

    Yep, and one of the things Mr Card says in the article is that, basically, he doesn’t care what the law says and he seems to support the idea of armed insurrection against the legitimate government should gay marriage be allowed. He honestly seems to believe that gay marriage is a threat to democracy. On this issue, at least, he seems to be several miles over the madness horizon and accelerating.

    I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

    Hey, that’s fine. That’s what the internet is for. :) Well, that plus porn, illegal music downloads and Wikipedia. :D

    this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
    sorry if I have offended anyone
    yeah a 7th grader

    You did fine. :) I hope I see you on the blog again soon.

    no i am not a morman

    Fear not. I’d never accuse someone of something like that without proof. ;)

    • Elliott Carl Says:

      discrimination against gays… hmmm…
      Our government has discriminated against many people,
      African Americans
      Native Americans
      Women
      Various ethnicities during times of war (German, Japanese)
      the list goes on
      The law did not treat these groups fairly, and they were not given the full rights to freedom that the government is supposed to give to all of us.

      however, gays are not being discriminated against. Gays have the same rights as everyone else, the can get married if they want to, just like anyone else can. They just don’t want to get married, they want to do something else that is not marriage by the current definition. This “Gay marriage” is not legal in most states, but that is not discrimination against gays just the same as laws against starting a business without a permit are not discrimination toward business owners. It is fair and it applies to everyone, and just like any other law it can be changed by the majority if our government really works – and at the state level it does work very well. If it is decided that “gay marriage” should be allowed, but just not called marriage, that is not discrimination at all, it would perfectly fair. It would give every-one a new right that no one else has ever had. Though, many people do not want that right.

      • Chris Says:

        Gays don’t have the right to get married if it’s to someone of the same sex (at least not in most states). Yes, they can get married to someone of the opposite sex, but I assume you’re smart enough to know why that’s not a factor here.

        If it is decided that “gay marriage” should be allowed, but just not called marriage, that is not discrimination at all, it would perfectly fair.

        That’s like saying that women should be allowed to vote, but it shouldn’t be called voting, just an “optional opinion poll”. Besides, if you’re willing to allow it under a word other than marriage, then there’s no compelling reason to not call it marriage. That was the logic behind the ruling in the California case that legalized it, briefly, there.

        Oh, and gays do not have the same rights as everyone else. In many places you can be fired, legally, for being gay. Gays are also not allowed to adopt children in many states. Plus there’s “don’t ask, don’t tell”. So, no, gays do not have the same rights. Sorry.

  14. Chris Says:

    So the Mormon Times changed the link to the article. I’ll pretend I assume it’s because of my blog post. Yes, my ego is big enough to believe that. ;)

    Anyhow, I’ve corrected it and the link in the post will now take you to the article on their website.

  15. Kristian Says:

    Agree. Well skewered.

    Funny word, “permanent”. Adding the prefix “semi-” completed alters the meaning.
    “… permanent or semipermanent bond …”
    So is it or is it not permanent, Mr. Card?

    Ps. The giraffe has the best caption I’ve seen in some time!

  16. Drey Says:

    U say this was written by a 7th grader um ya I could definitely believe that because of how horrible it was written. It almost seems contradictory to itself it’s so inlogical. Most of us I would assume know that a government is supposed to “govern” the people and set up guidelines as rules to follow “within reason of course” I’m by all means not agreeing with communism just a few humanitarian guidlines. If we had absolute freedom humans would destroy themselves within a decade for with pure freedom it would be perfectly within Ur neighbors right to say he likes Ur car shoot u an take it. This argument holds about as much water as the eye of a needle. Nice job “lols” 7th grader. Although I shouldn’t laugh. For this is sadly where America is headed. It has become a corrupted system of no less “Adults” who have the same ideals as “children” it truly is a sad thing. As far as abortion goes that’s just one step into the freedom of murder and as far as gay marriage goes I’m sure eventually it will be quite legal to marry your cat. The fact that anyone child or adult would upheld such ideals in a supposedly modern society is to say the least… Sicking. 

    • Drey Says:

      I’m sorry a quick edit I stated that u were a 7th grader. That came from someone elses post and I apologize for my misinformation. Lol I thought u were a 7th grader because of how unrealistic ur argument was my bad. U should really try harder to make a sounder argument. And to any 7th graders I offended by comparing him to you I am truly sorry

    • Chris Says:

      As far as abortion goes that’s just one step into the freedom of murder and as far as gay marriage goes I’m sure eventually it will be quite legal to marry your cat.

      This is true. Removing a bundle of non-sentient, parasitic cells from a woman’s body before they are emitting delta brain waves is exactly the same as murder! Well-spotted! And certainly it’s quite clear that allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry will eventually lead to a situation where one consenting adult will be allowed to marry an animal that is legally incapable of consent! It’s all part of a big plot to allow people to marry cows! Argh, you’ve found us out!

      [close-captioned for the sarcasm impaired]

      • Drey Says:

        Non-sentient? Why quite the contrary. For you see something is only as sentient as it has a potential to be. For u see the cells will one day be a full grown human. With an argument like yours I suppose we should be allowed to kill 1 2 or 3 year olds because in reality their intelligence is barely a recognition of there surroundings. I suppose next we will dispose of the mentally ill. One could argue quite easily a state of intelligence since we don’t consider animals sentient beings therefore we may butcher them for food at whatever time we please. So I guess one could argue that you urself lack the intelligence to be considered sentient and therefore if an educated man were to say. We do not need you anymore then that would be that the electric chair would be ur next destination. As for animal marriage a conspiracy? Lol I think not. It is just an observation of a long coming pattern. In which under the clause of freedom humans will legally be allowed to do things that are just plan wrong ethically and naturally for I think even most simpletons can find error of say the the presidents bride being a cat. Hello china here’s introducing the president and his wife misses fluffy the cat! Ya yay for us I’m sure everyone can be proud of that. Sarcasm included

  17. Chris Says:

    Amusingly, I had to change the article link today. This is the third time I’ve had to do this. Fun, fun.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 264 other followers

%d bloggers like this: