Orson Scott Card is a homophobic bigot.

You probably know of Orson Scott Card as the author of the novel Ender’s Game, but did you also know he’s an intolerant right-wing nutjob? As if to exemplify, Orson has penned a piece for the Mormon Times – apparently, an actual newspaper – in which he reveals his penchant for strawmen, false allusions, and scare quotes.

You see, Orson don’ like him none o’ them thar faggots a-gittin’ theirselves married ‘n’ suchlike. Proving that Southern Baptists and right-wing Catholics don’t have a monopoly on intolerance and willful stupidity, he launches into one of the most poorly written and long-winded rants against gay marriage (which he always put in scare quotes) that I’ve ever seen.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

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.

Let’s see: the California Supreme Court determined that the state Constitution does not bar homosexual couples from getting married. Anti-gay activists have forced onto the ballot a proposition that the constitution be amended to conform to their religious beliefs. The vote is coming up this fall, but polling is against it.

That looks pretty democratic to me – except the part about amending the constitution, that is – but I’m just, you know, rational. I suppose when the vote goes against them (and all rational people hope it does), Orson will start ranting about “mob rule” or something.

And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

Actually, Orson, it is homeschooling that is most often used for purposes of propaganda. Of course, there are parents who do wish to provide for their children a better education than what the public schools could provide, but who cannot afford a private option, so they choose to home-school. They are in the minority, however.

The majority of homeschoolers simply want to educate their children in an environment in which they are fully submersed in Christian propaganda, keep them from learning anything about evolution, and, in general, prevent them from encountering any belief that might challenge their parents’ rigid worldview – like learning that everyone is not exactly like them. That’s why homeschooling is predominantly an activity of right-wing Christians, and not representative of the general population.

But you knew that already, didn’t you? You just didn’t want to come out and say it.

Orson now switches in mid-rant to the term “homophobe”, to which he objects being called.

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"?

Actually, there are sound empirical reasons to describe anti-gay activists like yourself as homophobic. For example, rabid homophobia among men has been positively correlated to arousal to images of homosexual activity, implying psychological denial and reaction formation. The obsession people like you have with homosexuals is also indicative of psychopathology. And homophobes are very likely to engage in violence toward homosexuals.

But, if you want, I’ll stop calling you a “homophobe” and cut right to the point:

You’re a bigot. There, that better?

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. [emphasis in original]

What? Where? I must have missed those long line of heterosexuals being forced to marry other heterosexuals.

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.

Here’s some real irony for you, Orson. Was it not the very same fraudulent cult you follow that made polygamy a cornerstone of its practice, and that set up its own government to protect it? Is it not that very same cult that now tries to hide that historical fact, even while it’s more extreme members continues to practice it?

(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)

I would love to hear your views on the subject. If it’s as good as your present column, I’ll have to drape a tarp over my computer.

Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality.

I thought people like you didn’t believe that you was a-come from none o’ them thar monkeys. Maybe that’s not what you’re saying here, though, since you’ve really come unhinged. This is, what, your sixth or seventh digression from the topic at hand; it must be hard to keep it all, ahem, straight.

But this brings up an interesting point. Since you’re so damn longwinded, I won’t quote, but it seems that you’re saying that the purpose of marriage is tied to procreation. This is a common rationalization of your type of bigotry. What about childless couples, then? Are their marriages “real”? Should a marriage be annulled if the couple fails to “be fruitful, and multiply”? And is this really the level at which your brain works? That you think that marriage should be based on reproductive capacity, and not love?

And as for that “long mammalian tradition”, you’re right, but you don’t see the implications. The overwhelming majority of sexually reproducing organisms are heterosexual, but there are also a minority in every species who favor their own sex. This has not led to extinction in any species, ever. Just because a minority of gay people want to get married, it will not suddenly cause every straight marriage to disappear, or every straight couple to become barren.

It just keeps going on like this, rambling from one topic to another. In a bit, Orson will write the following:

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.

Here Orson comes close to admitting the real reason marriage developed: to protect private property – i.e., a man’s wife or wives. Christianity is full of examples in which a woman is regarded as nothing but the property of a man, be it her father or husband. That’s still pretty much the case in Muslim societies, which originate from the same tradition as your own belief.

Orson then goes on this long spiel about straight people not doing enough to protect the “sanctity” of marriage. Once again, he’s right, but completely misses the point. If marriage is so “sacred”, then why do straight people piss all over it. How many “hunter” marriages are there each year, in which the couple climb into a tree stand to exchange their vows. Given the demographic, I’m sure that most of those tree-couples would agree with you, so I must ask: how does such a display respect the “sanctity” of marriage? Or are they just turning it into a joke?

Why are divorce rates higher in areas with a higher percentage of conservative Christians? Why do so many conservative Christian politicians and ministers rage against the immorality of homosexuality, but later get caught cheating on their wives – often with other men?

I'm sick of you and your ranting homophobia, so I'll sum up:

You are full of shit. You are a bigot. If this were the 1960s, you would be railing against miscegenation. Gay marriage will do nothing to straight marriage. The only reason you and your kind object to it is because you are filled with hate. Somehow, and this is common throughout your political and religion affiliation, you believe that if you don’t absolutely dominate something, then there is an “assault” or a “war” against you.

And while I’ve got your attention, Ender’s Game was overrated crap. I saw that ending coming from the first chapter.

TAGS: , , , ,


llewelly said...

... but there are also a minority in every species who favor their own sex.

There are a few primate species - notably bonobos (one of two extant species most closely related to homo sapiens sapiens) and Japanese macaques - in which most individuals engage in homosexual activities with greater desire, frequency and duration than they do heterosexual activity. (Obviously, they don't do this to the exclusion of reproduction; both species have been around for millions of years.) This is important because nearly every time a homophobe attempts to drag evolution or other the behavior of other animals into their arguments against decent treatment of homosexuals, they try to support their position in part by implying that homosexuality necessarily results in non-reproduction. And that's a baseless argument; sexual behavior is not all-or-nothing, it is not perfectly straight or perfectly gay.

By the way - in my experience, being raised Mormon, and living most of my life along Utah's Wasatch front, around plenty of Mormons - many Mormons (possibly a majority), especially those of Card's generation and younger, and especially college-educated Mormons, do believe in a sort of guided evolution - 'evolution is just the way god did it'. Card's fiction - at least the 10 or so books of it I read before I became incensed at his horrible politics in the early 1990s - indicated to me that at the time he wrote that fiction, he believed in 'god-guided evolution'. That's a wrong-headed view, but it's not nearly as wrong as outright rejection of evolution.

James Hanley said...

This isn't really fair--you didn't tie one hand behind your back.

The Brutal Gourmet said...

No, I must agree with Mr. Card. It is high time that we stop with these modern redefinitions of marriage and embrace the more traditional form: a contract of ownership over a woman between one man and one or more women's fathers. (end snark)

I also love all the arguments that if we permit same sex marriage the human race will shortly vanish. After all, these people will have more kids if we don't let them get married, right?