This Will Probably Not Trigger Any Discussion

August 12th, 2008 by skippy

So one of my favorite authors decided to voice his opinions on a social issue that has been thrust into the spotlight for the past several years.

Orson Scott Card on gay marriage.

He treats this issue with all of the care, dignity, and respect that you would expect from one of the more skilled authors currently alive today.

And by care, dignity, and respect I mean he poured a giant bucket of crazy all over a page. And then danced around it widdershins. Naked, while covered in blue paint.

I’m going to address some of his more, for lack of a better word, fanciful claims.

He claims that this signals the end of democracy, that by ruling in favor of gay marriage the courts are over-ruling popular vote.

California and Massachusetts had ruling that anti-gay marriage laws violated their state constitutions. Neither state has been able to get an amendment through to change the constitution to ban such marriage. Sounds to me like this “majority” doesn’t mind gay marriage so much.

He also goes on to claim that it’s absurd for the definition of marriage to be changed, when it has historically meant one thing only throughout human history. Which is true.

Unless you count the Middle East. And Asia. And North America before the Europeans showed up. Or you know, the Mormons.

Because I’m sure no one could find any way that the Mormon’s marriages have worked differently than the majority of society, at any point in their history.

(BTW Mr. Card is a Mormon, for the record.)

He then goes on to bring up the slippery slope argument, by showing how bad legalized abortion has turned out. Y’know other that the reduction in human suffering, and nationwide drop in crime.

“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.”

I suspect that the problem here is that me and Mr. Card are defining abortion slightly differently. I’m going with the definitions as laid down by modern medicine, and he’s decided to run with the popular “Shit someone made up” theory.

He also complains that the courts have banned free speech over the issue. Specifically that people are not allowed to pray outside of these clinics.

To describe the behavior of anti-abortion activists as “prayer” seems like a slight distortion of actual events to me. And by slight distortion I mean it’s a great big pile of fertilizer. Which will then be taken home, mixed with diesel fuel, and then returned to the clinic. Trying to threaten, coerce, and scare people into doing what you want isn’t acceptable in our society, no matter how many nice words you dress it up in to feel better about yourself for essentially being a low-life that likes to pick fights with pregnant women.

I could tell you all that I love toasting marshmallows. And I could make a giant wooden letter “t” to stand for the word toasting and symbolize my love. And then I could tell you that I wish to share this symbol of marshmallowy goodness with the nice black family down the street.

But if I stuck that letter t in their yard and lit it on fire, I don’t think anyone would question my subsequent arrest. No matter how many damn marshmallows I brought.

So I guess where I am going with this rant is the following:
When it comes to sci-fi, Orson Scott Card is an awesome fiction author. But when it comes to social issues, he’s still an awesome fiction author.

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am and is filed under Soapbox. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Jo Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am

Aside from anything else Orson Scott Card contradicts himself several times within his article.
For example, first he calls homosexuality “tragic genetic mixups”, then he calls it a “lifestyle choice” (which is just silly, does he think that all homosexuals are homosexuals because at age 14 they sat down, made a list of pros and cons, talleyed up the collums and went ‘hmmm, I guess I pick the boys’?).

ineedhelpbad reply on August 12th, 2008 12:25 pm:

Let me just start by saying that I don’t agree with anything Mr. Card said but, when he said “tragic genetic mix-ups” he meant people who were born with multiple x and/or y chromosomes who are not genetically male or female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality

Skippy I will never look at marshmallows the same again

Stickfodder reply on August 12th, 2008 1:14 pm:

Yeah, ditto on the racist marshmallows.

Captcha “SPECIAL Edward” Is captcha referring to someone born with multiple x and/or y chromosomes?

Angelus reply on August 13th, 2008 6:03 am:

Why are you picking on the marshmallows? Is it because they’re white?

Timedoc Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

This is just plain sad. He HAD a fan in me, but with this revelation, he has lost that fan. This only proves that having a great imagination does not instill great wisdom nor a open-mind. I for one will NOT go see “Ender’s Game” the movie if it is ever finished.

Signed,
A former O.S.C. fan

Sicarius reply on August 12th, 2008 5:26 pm:

He still has a fan in me, although I question that fandom every single time I remember Xenocide.

Brad J reply on August 12th, 2008 10:00 pm:

He had a fan in me until Xenocide.

I haven’t read any new novels by him since.

I’ve been told that the Bean books are better, but…I just can’t bring myself to trust him again.

morrogoth Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

look the man wrote damned fine books, (i still have my original copy of Enders Game) but there are few things i cannot stand. first off Im anti abortion. period. my personal beliefs aside, i just dont see why we are setting back evolution by inventing ways to stop population growth. i am well versed in this issues rhetoric. But neither will i go foaming at the mouth at every clinic. I see where people are intimidated by the protests. its funny how all of America bands together over rights and bills and amendments getting raped, yet is quicker to condemn protesters as lunatics and fear mongers, to me in my opinion its a double standard. its okay to protest whaling, and other ecological b.s, but not okay when people protest
abortion as they do. my point is simple, like arabs, are all arabic people toting bombs and waiting to blow us up? no, so take it to heart that not all abortion protesters are waiting outside of doctors homes with a high caliber sniper rifle, or nail filled pipe bombs. On the subject of gay marriage, i could care less if they marry, but i still see a divergence in evolution and think of wolves in my logic. in a wolf pack survival is key, so when one diverges from its natural course, the entire pack turn on it and kill it, simple. no im not advocating the slaughter of homosexuals, cause they are cool to drink with, but i dont think that every state should change their laws cause everyone can admit that there are some crummy states. Mr. Cards rants only lends ammo to the argument that anyone who doesn’t uphold the majorities views are crazy, lunatics. notice that i didnt inject my faith into this little diatribe.

(btw, skippy, id like your advice, im joining the army ,any advice?)

SPC Hyle reply on August 12th, 2008 4:54 pm:

Morrogoth:

Have you seen an eco-protest compared to an abortion protest? They’re not close to being the same at all. Go to an abortion clinic. Yeah, watch that shit. Eco-protesters don’t take photographs of cars entering the property, forcibly attempt to prevent entry, etc. They don’t use some of the worst insults possible on emotionally vulnerable people.

You’ll also not something very obvious at these abortion protests: not one protester, not a goddamned one, will offer to adopt a child rather than let a woman abort it. None of them even offer. Hateful hypochrists.

morrogoth reply on August 12th, 2008 10:59 pm:

still, a man in china did nearly the same thing, and was run over bay a tank, was he a lunatic protester? look at the people in china before the olympics, they protested. this country was founded on protester who did much, much worse. i feel bad that the protesters tactics, but not that they are willing to stand for their beliefs. umm yeah eco protesters block freight ships containing medicines from entry, they sabotage equipment and other dangerous acts. my point is about the protest, not who does what.

captcha: ar unnoticed

morrogoth reply on August 12th, 2008 11:14 pm:

I also call bullshit on the hateful hypocrite comment, because here in pensacola there are organizations and charities who are outside with the protesters willing to adopt out the child to couples who are barren. and i would be damned glad to adopt the children of mothers not wanting them, my mom god rest her soul adopted many children before dying, then my aunts picked up her work, so before you stereotype an entire group, do your homework. many, many churches offer safe places for mothers who cannot keep their children, and a large percent find wonderful, loving homes.

Stickfodder reply on August 13th, 2008 12:20 am:

“a man in china did nearly the same thing, and was run over bay a tank” If you are talking about the protester in Tiananmen Square who stood in front of the tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man) he wasn’t ran over the tank stopped and tried to go around him but he wouldn’t let it. In fact he eventually climbed up onto it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ&NR=1)

SPC Hyle reply on August 13th, 2008 2:46 am:

Yeah, how many of them show up at protests and tell women entering the clinic this instead of just shouting “Whore” and “Babykiller” at them?

That’s what I thought.

The protesters will do anything for the unborn–unless it means personal sacrifice on their part.

SPC Hyle reply on August 13th, 2008 2:49 am:

You can protest all you want–I have never said a damn thing about their right to protest. I was just saying that there is a reason that they are reviled as people–they failed “Human Decency 101”.

morrogoth reply on August 13th, 2008 11:06 am:

SPC hyle,

personal sacrifice denotes that both parties are willing to follow through with the action, i.e the sacrificer and the sacrificee. i planned to write out a long drawn out response, but this is all i care to do:

Off topic and flipping the issue onto you.

i forgotten the stats on how many dumpster prom babies are born and left for dead each year.

so i ask this.

why in the bloody fuck are we screaming about aborting ,pro life, pro choice, gay marriage, etc. when scared teen girls throw babies away, children are exploited for the profit of sick and disgusting fleshmongers, there are children in homes where no one cares for them, abused children, poor hungry children, kids sitting in orphanages until 18 (i was bounced from 1 abusive foster home to another until i ran away, got my ged and scored high enough on my college enterance exams) than need all this screaming for. both sides of this argument disgusts me. no one wants to look out for little suzy whos goingto bed hungry for the 5th time this week. has humanity degraded to the point where personal choice issues outweigh the greater good? you scream about choice and that not many protesters are willing to adopt children, but i ask you spc hyle, are you willing to adopt the children, are you willing to forfeit your life in the military to care for a child? (and if you do, good for you) you claim personal choice is important, it is, but sometimes the choice is taken from us and we have to play the hand were dealt, end of story. fine if you dont want to be a parent, then get your tubes tied or a vasectomy. simple, they have reversible operations. it isnt hard to figure out, there is a risk of pregnancy if you have sex.

and as for reviled,

just as the military was reviled during the vietnam war and korean conflict? i mean seriously. do you honestly think im stupid enough not to acknowledge that there are those who failed that course of yours. but you wont give over to my point that not all of them are shouting obscenities and blocking doors. please stop lumping everyone into one nice tidy stereotypical extremist bucket. i know for a fact that not all soliders who fought in Vietnam were babykillers, rapists, murderers, etc. so id like you to know that not all protesters have failed human decency 101.

Ix reply on August 14th, 2008 5:01 pm:

Morrogoth, China is renowned for its failure to meet human rights standards. Yes, in China, protesters are silenced – quite often violently.

Does the same thing happen in the United States? Or in Canada?
No.

And yet, anti-abortionists do take pictures of the cars driving up to the clinics, and they do harrass women and girls who are in a fragile emotional state already.
And I’d like you to name one of them that would admit to having offered to adopt any of those babies.

If you’re going to compare protesting to what happens in front of abortion clinics, at least stay within the same country when you do it.

(Captcha: specious Totals. No comment.)

Phelps reply on August 13th, 2008 12:49 am:

Yeah, because those peaceful ecoterr… protesters would never do anything like set researcher’s houses on fire or burn down car dealerships or mail bombs to people.

SPC Hyle reply on August 13th, 2008 2:43 am:

Protesters and arsonists are not necessarily the same people. If you note, I deliberately did NOT include abortion clinic murderers/bombers with abortion clinic protesters, despite the overlap.

So you’re shooting blanks on the “intellectual honesty” range here.

SeanMonster reply on August 12th, 2008 5:00 pm:

Wow, you clearly know little about how evolution works.

And wolf behavior.

And marriage.

morrogoth reply on August 12th, 2008 11:04 pm:

no again my point is that taking out few individuals, may limit certain traits. ever notice that people have gotten shorter? im just saying its not natural. and wolves do kill the one that may hinder their survival.
and marriage, i do concede the point since im a college nerd. but it all seems funny to me that no one even polled the gay community to ask if they all wanted to get married, cause only a small percent do, from hanging out with my gay friends, i surmised that the homosexual lifestyle is hedonistic.

courtney reply on August 13th, 2008 3:02 am:

People have gotten shorter? Where have you seen that *anywhere*? Since the 15th century, average height has in fact, risen. It’s not (likely) due to evolution, either, since it takes hundreds of thousands of years to actually determine a recognizable physical change through evolution. Things like a change in average height results more from better childhood nutrition than our grandparent’s choice of mate.

morrogoth reply on August 13th, 2008 10:34 am:

actually i noticed it when infact that i walk around taller than everyone at a whopping 6’7″ (sarcasm) ive noticed in high school. and now. and as for better nutrition, people in the dark ages and bronze ages are eating better than our kids today (thanks mcdonalds) this society is a society of convenience and sloth, why cook a healthy meal when you can order it? why make your kids eat a good meal when they will bitch and moan about it making you feel like your losing your best friend (friend denotes equal, children are never an adults equal and if they were, why the hell arent they working for their video game and clothing habits?) im reminded of a cartoon from Heavy Metal Magazine, called blobs, the whole satirical point was that the entire society was based off of machines taking care of every to the point of people no longer walked but used floating devices, and the funny part, the main machine that controlled the entire world, BROKE DOWN, and since no one knew how to fix it, they all died… kind of creepily true here. so as for better nutrition, your grandparents have eaten better than we do.

courtney reply on August 12th, 2008 8:01 pm:

This term “Divergence of evolution” confuses me. Is this like a term from the Heroes tv show? Because we’re not preventing evolution by allowing birth control. We’re preventing overpopulation of the planet and wasting of resources, for one thing. The number of reasons for birth control are as many as those who care to use any given method.

I don’t think the desire to restrict one’s genetic material from the fugure generations is a very common reason.

I reserve the right to call anyone a lunatic and fear monger. Even if it’s the barista at Starbucks.
“Here’s your mocha latte”
“You’re a lunatic and a fear monger”
“Thank you, have a nice day!”

morrogoth reply on August 12th, 2008 11:08 pm:

do you honestly think that we could possibly overpopulate the planet? haven’t anyone noticed the newest deadly diseases? I mean to me its a clear signal that nature is can regulate just fine on her own. I just believe that abortion may take away future geniuses and world changers. DNA and procreation is like a vegas game. the odds of the combination are astronomical, but not improbable. i still dont think killing off our offspring will help matters any.

Stickfodder reply on August 13th, 2008 12:35 am:

Yes we could overpopulate the planet just look at china they have 1/5 the worlds population they are so overcrowded that they have laws saying each family can only have 1 child. And currently the global birth rate exceeds the global death rate (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe)

Andrew reply on August 13th, 2008 1:27 am:

In evolution overpopulation let to disbursment of the species (Same general species, different location and appearance). Unfortunately humans have a tencancy to coalesce instead of disburse. Can we over populate the planet. Of course we can.

As for diseases, ost of the “new” diseases you are talking about are actually quite old, they are just more noticed because of the large population concentrations. Most “modern” diseases are just old diseases that have mutated, Or evolved if you will, with modern medicine. Take the common bacteria e.colli. The e.colli you see and read about is in fact quite old. But we use newer and more powerful antibiotics on it and it mutates to become more resistant to said antibiotics. This is the same with ALL microbial diseases.

Seriously, look into all the data and not just the facist teachings of a mind incapable of accepting the most basic facts of life.

Jason reply on August 13th, 2008 2:05 am:

Morrogoth – making up science one “fact” at a time.

morrogoth reply on August 13th, 2008 10:25 am:

simple microbiology experiment:

1 petre dish
1 tsp of growing medium
1 bacterium of choice
1 incubator
a week left alone

my point proven.

fine if im making shit up, look at the population growth for this year, notice how there are more deaths than births? notice that at zero population growth we die off? do you realize that we are the only species to actively kill ourselves off? wars, plagues, famine, crime, drugs, etc. what i was saying is that its kind of hard to overpopulate (china has been that way for ages) the entire world. it would require humans to settle in environments that we are not adapted to (north, south pole, gobi and the other deserts, etc.) and besides global warming and the giant space worms will finish us off. (if no ones gotten this, i am making shit up because this entire argument is pointless and outdated, and extremely prone to petty infighting, what the real issue is that we may be facing another cold war, russia is getting antsy with its attacks on Georgia)

Reignonyourparade reply on August 14th, 2008 2:26 am:

the whole “take away geniuses and world changers” has kinda been refuted more then a few times with “it could just as easily prevent the next Hitler.”

SeanMonster Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

tsukinofaerii Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Aw, Skippy, don’t be so harsh. I’m sure that his statements make perfect sense and that Mr. Card has a reason for them. Possibly something to do with those pretty mushrooms that pop up in the desert after a good rain.

I find it kind of cute (in a sad, pathetic, “put this thing out of its misery” sort of way) that people keep holding up the “redefining marriage” card. *Was* marriage ever actually and officially defined as “male-female pairings only” in state or federal law before this? I’m pretty sure not. (Don’t hold me to it though—there’s probably at least one state of fifty that thought of it before this.) So how can something that wasn’t legally defined be *re*defined? Anyone? Bueller?

Godless Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

First off . I have 2 gay cats . Love em to death :)

2nd. I detest all marriages.. It was founded on the belief that a man can own a woman . If you really believe in the “sanctity” of marriage you think a woman can be owned .
It was not founded on equality . I can tell you that .

I really don’t want to sink to the xtians level but . I think we should just start protesting weddings period.

I have never really understood it . Why do you need a contract to love? I have been with the same woman 9 years now . Never cheated . And things are great. She knows my stance on marriage and we have agreed that unless we need it to get a tax break . Were gonna skip the whole thing .

I also dont understand the hate for gay people .
Ask any gardener what happens if you change a plants light cycle . It will start producing both male and female flowers . Its a protection instinct.
I feel the same way about why some people are gay . Its an over population thing .

Simple-minded reply on August 14th, 2008 11:49 pm:

Thank you, someone else who thinks its due to over population. Obviously this doesn’t make it wrong, it just might explain it for people who seem to need one.
Also, does anyone get the feeling morrogoth is just stirring it up for the sake of it? He’s just arguing cos he likes to.

usagi reply on August 17th, 2008 7:58 am:

You don’t need a contract to love, you need a contract to insure inheritance and other contractual rights interwoven in the law with marriage.

Andrew Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

O.S.C. pretty much based his entire argument on two things.

1) The justices made the descision. This is in fact untrue. The justices overrode a legislative descision banning it, which is in fact within their power (go back to 5th grade and Review the “Gonvernment Check-and-balances” section).

2) The government controls marriages. Since marriage is a religious insitution it does not belong in the government, and should not have government oversight. Here is a completely unoriginal thought: Remove the term marriage and call it civil union.

His argument says things will spiral out of control based on the processes of legalized abortion. One of his major arguments in there, the killing of babies during the birth process, is in fact illegal in all but one state now, and that state provides severe fines for those doctors practicing it. In all other states it is considered first degree murder on both the doctors and the mothers part. It was called partial birth abortion, which now refers to the inducement of labor at between 4 and 6 months, and the eradication of the offspring as a “mercy”.

Personally, I think there is a time and place for abortion. But it shouldn’t be decided by the mothers, the family of the mothers, or the activists screaming for a babies blood to prove their point. It should be for extreme cases, like when childbearing puts the life of the mother at signifigant risk, or in the case of brutal crimes, like rape. It should be medically decided upon before even being suggested to the mother, with severe penalties for the doctors suggesting if there is EVER a doubt that it wasn’t neccissary.

Also as a side note… I know there are many soldiers on this site, and I’m wondering how many of them actually fully read the last three paragraphs of his statement. For those who didn’t I’m reposting them:

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

“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.

“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.”

Let me pull a few key statements out of this mass of confusion:

1) What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them. – So he’s saying it is okay to break laws you don’t agree with because the judges will change their mind if enough people do.

2) 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. – He is declaring himself an enemy of the government and will actively try to bring the government down and replace it with his own idealistic government

3) 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. – Where in the constitution does it fight marriage? It condones marriage as a respected insitution and provides protections supporting marriage. Is it because the consitution doesn’t define marriage to his specific and narrow views? He needs to actually read the constitution before declaring “it will die.”

I leave you all with this closing statement:

“Let the gays have their marriage. Everyone has and equal right to be miserable.” – Many Voices

Jason Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

I, for one, welcome our new stylish feng-shui overlords.

Meagan Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 2:46 am

i want some goddamned marshmallows now…

TheShadowCat Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 4:07 am

Ok, that article gets a big old WTF!? Did this man do any research at all?

If he’s so gung ho about protecting the sanctity of marriage, then he should be screaming for the banning of divorce. Only with the removal of the easy way out will people think long and hard before taking their vows.

Of course, the fact that the man is a Mormon does make make the whole thing rather humorous in sick and twisted sort of way.

Jake Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 5:05 am

I agree with about 90% of your post. It does sound like Mr. Card is missing a few from his deck.

However, partial-birth abortion is the killing of a viable child midway through the birth process. Provided he mean viable with neonatal care, and birthing as having been pulled down the birth canal. So while it may be misleading, it is true.

Second, it is simply not true that “Trying to threaten, coerce, and scare people into doing what you want isn’t acceptable in our society…”

It is incredible acceptable, provided you are in the majority. Otherwise police would not be issued anything more deadly than harsh words. Neither would our military exist. Our country has a great and noble history of forcing our opinions on others, and it is still acceptable in our society as you so rightly point out with your exmple of roasting marshmallows over a burning “t”.

Now while your example has to do with placing that “t” in their yard it is also true that there are many states where even if you burned it in your own yard the police could arrive with their oh so forceful guns and not just make you stop but lock you up. And for what again, expressing your own opinion on your own land. So what if the other people don’t like it. As it has been said the right to swing your fist ends where it hits my nose, not where it hurts my feelings.

Now, before anyone thinks too harshly, I don’t burn crosses. I do like it when people burn their crosses and march up and down the street. If I didn’t know their thought process beforehand I certainly do now. In fact, Skippy and I both have in common the fact we have served to defend other peoples right to express themselves, even if it is offensive to others.

Benji Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 5:50 am

It’s all horse-shit.
I really can’t believe there are so many people out there that think they can control someone else’s actions because they don’t agree.

I am an atheist. Or, what I like to think of as a rationalist. I’m also a big flaming faggot. Shove your god up your ass. I’m serious. More toes have been stepped on (and cut off) in the name of Yahweh/Allah and Jesus/Muhammad than have ever been “saved”.

You want to save marriage?
Stop getting married simply because you want to have sex or have already impregnated someone. Stop your priests and preachers from raping little boys and/or cheating on their wives. Start following some of your own damned rules and bring YOUR 65% DIVORCE RATE down a little before you start telling ME that I’M going to ruin marriage.

Gay as Hedonism?
Bullshit, lady. I work very hard to be a productive member of society, and have always been a faithful lover and friend. There are plenty of straight people that are far more hedonistic than I.

And all this talk about how homosexuality is ’emerging’. All so much horse-shit. Homosexuality has existed in the SAME PERCENTAGES in MANY SPECIES since the BEGINNING OF RECORDED HISTORY. We just happen to have more press, but then again, who doesn’t these days? Can anyone name the actress that plays Hannah Montana?

The people that should be feeling this constant prodding are members of the religious right. You can go ahead and pray into emptiness, but stop petitioning the courts to force your religious courses as acceptable public-college credits. Remember that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Lincoln (among MANY others) were atheists, and did NOT nurture these states to preserve Christianity, but rather to PROTECT US FROM RELIGION! My sexuality isn’t up for anyone’s approval, and I will fight tooth and nail for my rights even if I die in the process. Who I AM is not an OPINION, and is TANGIBLE. What you BELIEVE in is an OPINION, and is NOT TANGIBLE. My RIGHTS come before your GOD.

Oh, and “[sic]but gays are fun to drink with”?!? I wish your gay friends (if you DO have any) could see how you talk about them, as if they are fun little toys that are so very much lower than you.

And as for those who say, “How could thousands of years of religion be wrong? Isn’t it more likely that the last 50 years of history are wrong?” No.
Maybe you need to remember how many religions predate yours. Or the sheer number of religions, not to mention sects in those religions, exist today on the planet (whose followers are JUST as SURE they’re right and YOU’RE WRONG.)

Not only that, but spurts of intelligence have happened many times throughout history, starting with man moving from being beasts to using tools and the last being the age of engineering/technology. Yeah, that last 50 or so years you were talking about.

Isn’t that a computer you’re connecting to the ‘net with? Isn’t it possible that our inability to create this technology in the past *might* have added to or even created the necessity to create a God or Gods in order to explain the universe?

Anyway, rant over. What have been listed here are FACTS. If I get a bible verse thrown in my face one more time I’m going to punch that person in the face for being a moron. Violence seems to be the only way in which the religious can be confronted; it’s certainly the only way they can convert people. (SEE: Spanish Inquisition, Jericho, Sodom & Gomorrah, both Americas, Hawa’ii (that was mostly from diseases, but they didn’t put a stop to it), The ENTIRE Middle East, the list is just too long, but you get the gist.)

Tony reply on August 13th, 2008 6:14 am:

you left out the crusades

Sicarius reply on August 13th, 2008 6:17 am:

Honestly, you’re not helping. As a liberal Catholic/agnostic/Pastafarian, in effect making me a moderate, I believe I can say that both the left and right wing people should just shut up and stop blaming each other for everything. Honestly. How about we just off the asshats with opinions? I wouldn’t shed a tear for the loss of a Ms. Coulter or a Mr. Dawkins.

Jake reply on August 13th, 2008 6:55 am:

Rant is definitely right.

1st:
“More toes have been stepped on (and cut off) in the name of Yahweh/Allah and Jesus/Muhammad than have ever been “saved”. ”
That’s debatable, and considering it has to do with saving someones soul its pretty much a religious argument. One which I, as a still living corporeal being am unable to refute or confirm. As a rationalist I am certain you would have to agree as unless you believe yourself to be omniscient can at best express rational belief there is an absence of proof of divinity, not proof of absence.

2nd:
Gay as Hedonism
You are mistaken on this. Why would homosexual men be spreading the HIV disease more rapidly among each other. You can disagree with it all you like but homosexual men, by their own admission, are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. You can find this by studies from the CDC that show homosexual men are back to having as many sex partners in a given year as prior to the HIV/AIDS panic. The fact that you may not be promiscuous, just as most catholic priests are not pedophiles, does not mean most homosexual men are not promiscuous.

3rd:
“Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Lincoln (among MANY others) were atheists”
They were not atheists. They were deists. As such I think a deist should undertake if deists believe in a creator/higher power as opposed to atheist who believe there is no higher power.
“To the Deist, the evidence is the creation and the idea of what brought about the evidence is the Creator.”
http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm
GW 1st inaugural address:
“…first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe,…” Yes definitely does not believe in a God
Benjamin Franklin – Deist. At least according to his autobiography, and I believe his own opinion of his beliefs more than yours.
Thomas Jefferson – At worst a Deist since he repeatedly spoke of a Creator. Not an Atheist.
Abraham Lincoln – Maybe Christian if you believe his wife who said he turned his heart to Christ when his don died. Of course several other people said he thanked God or feel to his knees etc. There are also some who say he was an atheist. Being generous I’ll give you half credit on Lincoln.

Your right on some counts, religion can be the driving force behind some horrible acts. In fact given that the vast majority of civilizations have had some form of state mandated, or at least sponsored religion, it is only to likely that these religions would be misused and cause pain and suffering. But to ignore facts you don’t like, or that disagree with your world view, is to pull the same type of wool over your eyes as you imply is pulled over others.

morrogoth reply on August 13th, 2008 2:21 pm:

amen.

paula Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 6:47 am

Whose business is ANY marraige arrangement between ANY consenting adults? Can’t say as I personally give a damn if a marraige is one male/one female, two males or two females, or any version of polygamy or polyandry. (Check out Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”: wonder what Mr. Card would say about LINE marraige?!?)

Sometimes I really wonder why the entire wedding industry doesn’t throw their considerable skills and weight behind making gay marraige legal everywhere: what with the average US wedding running about 26K these days, think of all the money to be made! All those additional wedding planners needed, all the extra catered meals and wedding cakes, the wedding outfits, the hall rentals, the honeymoon trips and — because gays people are people first! — the divorce lawyers.

captcha: seeking hope…. ya got THAT right!

Jake reply on August 13th, 2008 6:58 am:

Which is why me and the wife just used a Justice of the peace, me in my uniform her in a dress. Invite the friends and family to the house and have a cooking party.

All in I think we spent maybe $400, before booze I should say.

Captcha: daily late. Yep very true.

Sean Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 8:05 am

I gotta say that I find it funny that everyone who’s against gay marriage acts like legalizing it will make it mandatory.

Aside from that, and the out of f*uck nowhere abortion “discussion”, if people want to get married, and both know what they’re getting into (which is most universally the root problem that’s caused the high divorce rate), then what’s the problem? Oh, right. I forgot. It legitimizes them as people, and not just abominations against the Lord. While we’re on the subject, let’s talk about that oft-quoted Bible verse:

In Leviticus, it is explained that “man shall not lie with man as with woman; for to do so is abomination to the Lord”. Let’s just break down what abomination means. It means “unthinkable” or “impossible”, ie, the Abominable Snowman isn’t an unnatural occurence, but rather thought to be a creature that is impossible to exist. So, keeping that in mind, it just means that to “lie with man as with woman” is just something that doesn’t make sense, as the thought at the time of the verse’s writing was, that if you were going to go to bed with someone, it was ultimately for the purpose of having a kid. So guy/guy wouldn’t work for that goal. Let’s also keep in mind that at the time of the writing of the verse, Judaism (it’s Old Testament, keep up now) was still thought of as “that kooky one-god tribe”. So essentially the leaders of the religion were trying to shore up their numbers, and thus said that if you were gonna get down, do it for the kids. Dovetail that back into the “gay is wrong” argument, and it only really applies if your particular religion is hurting for members and believers, which last I checked, no Judeo-Christian faith is. So please sit down, shut up, and try to actually read the book you so often quote.

/rant

Sean Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 8:07 am

Oh yeah, almost forgot….boo-yah.

Benji Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 8:51 am

Sean:
Agree with you 100%

To Jake and Sicarius:
Not helping? No one’s helping. This idea that moderates have the best of both worlds just means you have the God Delusion but you aren’t ‘hardcore.’ I have friends like yourself, and we have heated (but healthy) debates over this. You saying fuck BOTH sides isn’t helping YOUR cause.

Sicarius, though I cannot disprove your God, I can bring more evidence to the table that he/she doesn’t exist than you could even dream of. Ask any scientist worth note, any philosopher of true grit. And by ‘saved’ I mean both physically and emotionally; considering most people in darker times became Christians out of fear and that Films like ‘Jesus Camp’ show just how frightening and, frankly, ABUSIVE indoctrination can be. Remember: the God you worship is responsible for a vast number of atrocities, either by ‘his’ word (hallucination) or HIS WORD (Biblical Reliance) or in his NAME (…in the name of Allah, etc.); aside from natural disasters (which, by your dogma, are ALSO actually God’s work.)

HIV::HEDONISM::GAY ISSUE
Um .. it attracts our attention, but:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/psp/pdf/psp.pdf
It’s disturbing to report, but apparently, yes, the CDC says gay men have a propensity for HIV infection, but 47% of cases are African American Men. Does that mean they are hedonistic? I don’t believe so, but they aren’t ALL gay. Besides: In Africa thousands die of the virus each day. And .. most of them are *straight*. AND CHRISTIANS. Remember? Y’all raped Africa a long time ago… most of them believe in a single deity, though many have turned to Muslim beliefs (same God, different flavor.)

When it comes to our early heads of state, I spoke too rashly (out of anger.) Yes, they are deists. Of course, this was nearly 250 years ago, so reliance on only a *vague* spectre might as well have been atheism. Still, I was wrong, and I admit when I’m wrong.

I’m going to borrow this and add an operand, Sean:

/rant defense

morrogoth reply on August 13th, 2008 10:05 am:

you realize that religion fueled your science, right? and all that evidence is worthtless unless it all can be moved from theories and to concrete proof, evidence means nothing unless its completely proven. so please consider that before speaking of how god caused all the bad things to happen, yet the bible clearly states that mankind has free will, to cause atrocities or to help. and only 1 natural disaster was god caused, and that disaster was proven to have happened. oh my! science has proven a biblical event to be true. so by your reasoning since neutrinos and other sub atomic particles cant be easily gathered for proof, they dont exsist?

Jake reply on August 17th, 2008 7:57 pm:

Sorry to take so long to reply but here goes. I don’t take a moderate view. My beliefs to what, if anything, exists or does not exist outside of this plane of existence, be it on a brane or what have you, is a matter of personal faith. I don’t claim that anyone else should have to keep their opinion to themselves, or not offer it up for public discourse but as neither side can be proved then the worst that can be said is it remains unproved and a matter of faith. Just as string theory or theories of brane collision causing the big bang are unconfirmed or unproven and require faith to proclaim they are true.

Re: CDC studies
The study itself does not prove anything. Drawing conclusion of hedonism from that alone would be faulty. However, by observing those most likely to be infected, unwanted pregnancy rates and what is deemed acceptable by the popular culture of a particular demographic conclusions can be drawn. Not everyone who has HIV is hedonistic, but many are and engaging in not just risky behavior but also irresponsible behavior. While you may not be willing to say so I will. Many of the people who have HIV have it due to incredible stupid decisions they have made. If they knew the possible consequences of their actions before engaging in them then I must accept that they only have coming to them what they deserve, the same as a person who willing plays Russian Roulette knowing the possible outcome deserves the bullet in the brain when it eventually comes.

Benji Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am

Oop… the 47% of HIV cases are African American Men, but that is both gay AND straight combined, not just gay black men.

Jacob Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 9:05 am

OK, let me just start with this: I believe there is a God. I am a Methodist.

Now before anyone jumps on the “he’s a religious nut!” bandwagon, let me just say that I believe in Him because I look at the world in all of its wonders and tragedies and cannot comprehend all of this happening by accident. Personally, I think that He has a sense of humor, and probably gets a big chuckle when people get so riled up over something so insignificant as this. I think Sean hit the proverbial nail on the head with his argument. And that people should be protesting divorce and not gay marriage.

To be perfectly honest, if two people of the same gender want to get married, let them. I dont care if they do. It’s their choice. If someone wants an abortion, let them have one. It’s. Their. Choice. If they don’t like the choice they made later on, oh well. They made their choice, they will live with the consequences, be they good or bad.

Also, to the idiots who pointed out that we religious types have stepped on so many toes throughout the centuries: that happened a long time ago, when we knew less about how are world works than today. People stuck to their strict, heavily biased doctrines because it offered an explanation for the world around them that they could wrap their tiny brains around. Of course if someone shattered that they’d be pissed, possibly to the point of violence. Am I excusing what they did? Absolutely not. I’m just saying that we have learned from our past and should try to move forward.

Now obviously there are still some that cling to the overconservative right, like Mr.Card, saying that the other side is a bunch of pot smoking hippies who kill babies and have amoral sex with people of the same sex. But there are just as many people on the liberal left side who (and now I’m looking at you, Benji) group anyone who has a religion into one big generalization of hate-filled zealots who think that everyone should follow what they believe or burn in hell. Neither side is correct.

All in all, I believe that everything should come down to personal choice, and that you should not be angry with someone who made a different choice than you. And yes, this includes religion. I believe that religion should be something that is offered as a choice, not forced on someone just because you believe in it. If anything, you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others because that’s what the Nazi’s did. And I think a good rule of thumb is: If Hitler tried it, don’t do it.

Sean reply on August 13th, 2008 9:16 am:

To be fair, now…pot smoking hippies aren’t anything to worry about. Look at Kent State. Fuckers just lined up for the army.

I keed, I keed.

Sean Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Again, some honesty on my part…that rant practically made me want a cigarette. For serious.

Also..I don’t necessarily think that divorce should be protested any more than gay marriage should be. Just that I think that the focus is put in the wrong place, and used as a scapegoat. It’s a classic high school/college reaction to a disappointment regarding the opposite sex: “He/she doesn’t like me. Must be gay.” Everyone’s at least thought it, even in a passing way, at least once. And to clear the air, I consider myself religiously independent; I believe in a higher power but don’t quite think anyone’s gone the right way with it yet. I don’t really think labels are going to solve the issue, either; marriage, union, left, right, etc. are not going to do anything to solve the issue at hand: people are asking to be thought of as equals, and other people are refusing the request.

I think I may need a cigarette, again.

captcha= parlor on. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like a rallying cry for Victorian-era revolutionaries.

Jacob reply on August 13th, 2008 9:59 am:

Not entirely sure on how to take that cigarrette comment. Is it a reference to “Thank You For Smoking”?

Sean reply on August 13th, 2008 10:52 am:

I was just referring to the rush I tend to get after getting into a good argument. I like personal conflict on a superficial level.

captcha= re- behaves. I got nothin’.

ELBSeattle Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I read Ender’s Game, by Card, and then I began the Alvin Maker series. I was struck by what looked to me like a direct gay allegory in the ‘knacks’: special talents the characters in the Alvin books had to hide from legalistic eyes. It seemed such an apt analogy for being gay that I did some research to find out about this obviously (to me) gay author. Boy was I surprised to find out that not only is he not gay, he is very anti gay. I could not continue reading his books. It felt as if I were spending time in someone’s home, but someone who did not want me there. It’s a shame, because he is a very talented writer. But just because someone is a very talented writer it doesn’t mean that they aren’t completely fucked in the head. Which is what leads anyone to rail against gay marriage (this fucked-in-the-headness). After all the complaints, howls of outrage, ‘reasoned debate’ and all manner of editorials, I still have yet to see how two men or two women getting married is contributing to the fall of western civilization. The way I see it, heterosexuals have done a fine job of shitting all over the ‘sacred’ institution. Folks, this ain’t one you can blame on the homos. Sorry.

Andrew Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Something just struck me and I felt the need to post.

For as long as I can remember the church has railed and ranted against the hedonists, pagans and heathens. Now I’m going to ignore (for now) the pagans and heathens and concentrate on hedonism.

What is hedonism? The easiest, most summed up description is hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is of ultimate importance, the most important pursuit.

So if I am reading this right the vast majority of “western civilization” are hedonists. Don’t believe me? Look at our lifestyles. We are a consumer culture. We buy vast quantities of things that realistically we have no need of. Why do we buy them? The root is pleasure. We buy them to entertain ourselves in one way or another. We buy so we can take pleasure in having better things than others. We buy them for their entertainment value. We buy them so we can be better at something than everyone else. we buy them because we are hedonistic in nature.

So here is a question to spark a loud and long debate/arguement:

Since most organized religions are guilty of a believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong, are they hedonistic too?

Andrew reply on August 13th, 2008 8:14 pm:

wow… I almost souded like O.S.C. with that last statement. Don’t let me type before I have my coffee. Allow me to restate the question.

Since more religions take pleasure thing the thought that they are right and everyone else is wrong, are they themselves hedonistic?

Captcha: sounding lives – Got anything?

SrA Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

THANK YOU SKIPPY!!! i now know who’s books i am getting rid of tonight! crazy is the nicest way of explaining that rant. it’s more than inflamitory, hate filled propeganda of a sad man trying to inflict his limited and off balance veiws of the world on everyone around him. why can’t fundamentalists stay at home.

Andrew reply on August 13th, 2008 11:52 pm:

I enjoy the fundamentalist view sometimes. No this was a right-wing rant of hate and propaganda. People like this should have plastic surgery done to remove their mouths, fingers and toes. That way we don’t have to deal with any of their diatribe.

Captcha: Madam sale – $10 per 10% off

Remy Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am

Well. Two things have happened because of this post.

One, I have lost a little bit of respect for Orson Scott Card. Just a little bit, because it seems to me that he has obviously gone batshit crazy (or maybe he always was, I think you must be a little bit batshit to write stories like him).

Two, I learned some lovely new insults, which I am always happy to him.

Three, I realized that I totally can’t count because there is totally another thing.

I really want some marshmallows, and maybe some dark hot chocolate to go with it

barry Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

i think the title of this thing is wrong

Stickfodder reply on August 15th, 2008 12:45 am:

I think it was sarcasm. Or are you being sarcastic too?

PFC Barry reply on August 15th, 2008 5:35 am:

what do you think

Jinn Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am

How could the man who came up with Alvin Maker be so… hidebound.

That shot down my opinion of him several notches- as a man. Doesn’t change my opinion that his books kick ass though.

Aislinn Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Two things: One As an ex mormon pagan (or a really bad mormon, depending on your definition), I know that the lot can be loopy, even though they mean well. As for gay marriage, I believe that as long as you are not hurting anybody, four score an seven more on Abe’s for all I care. Gay marriage an abortions are only related in that they are both things that religious factions seem to take offense too.
In the case of marriage, it should be between as many consenting adults as you can support legally. Notice the term “consenting adults.” Meaning that no one who is legally unable to sign the contract. Dead people, pets, and children are therefore completely out.
Secondly, I believe it is possible to have a person that you admire their works completely, but still not admire their points of view or actions. A certain pale member of the Jackson family comes to mind. It doesn’t mean that they are less talented, just a whole hell of a lot less likable.

Captcha “to Sidney” I wish.

Jolly Sapper Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

I could have gone my entire life being ignorant of both Card’s religious beliefs and personal bat shit crazy views.

*sniff*

I’ll never look at the “Ender’s Game” series the same way again.

I’ve loved reading about the “protection of life” laws that have banned “abortions” with some of the most ridiculously ignorant language possible about the subject. The banning of “partial birth abortion” which isn’t a known medical procedure. The wording in legislation that bans abortions, period, instead of medical abortions, or deliberately induce abortions, making it illegal to have an abortion regardless of medical necessity.

The wifey had some reproductive biology classes when she was in college that made it pretty clear that it doesn’t take much to cause a pregnancy to spontaneously abort. Making a woman who stands too close to a microwave, or drinks water with just a little too much contamination, a potential felon.

It seems that if the anti abortion crowd wanted to help reduce/stop deliberate abortions they would get more traction by offering/supporting real alternatives for a pregnant woman who is seriously considering an abortion. Spend some less time protesting women’s clinics and more time trying to revamp the child care system of the country, make natal medical care a national priority if not a responsibility, daycare centers readily available, entitlements to working women who can’t get to daycare centers and need to hire a sitter, things along those lines.

I wonder how many more supporters they would get if the loudest would stop treating the women like damaged goods unworthy of being treated like human beings.

Why not offer a helping hand instead of righteous condemnation?

Jolly Sapper Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am

I suppose I could have made my first post longer but this was an afterthought, sorry. Loosely related to Andrew’s definition of hedonism. (but not meant as a correction)

Let me get my ethics book *flips through pages looking for the section on Hedonism*.

From “The Moral Life” an ethics reader compiled by Louis Pojman, Professor of Philosophy, United States Military Academy at West Point. Page 609:

“The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 B.C.) founded the school oh philosophy named after himself, epicureanism, a hedonistic theory wherein good is identified with pleasure and evil with pain. In this he is the precursor of Bentham’s utilitarianism (chapter 4). But contrary to popular opinion, Epicurus’s version of hedonism is nothing like the modern ideas connected with his name – sensuality, profligacy, and decadence. On the contrary, he believed that the good life consisted in simple but deep pleasures and the absence of pain, in an attitude of imperturbable emotional tranquillity. We should seek pleasure in conversation, friendship, a good but simple diet, and a prudent life. Since only good and bad sensations should concern us, and death is not a sensation, we should not fear death. We should not even think very much about it.”

My how hedonism has “grown up” over the years, *tisks* such a shame.

Captcha: freed wily – *que Mega Man theme*

Terry Wagar Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 am

There’s A man named John Ray in Authority here in Portland Oregon and He is A f@@king Pedophile and A Serial Killer!

Snyarhedir Says:
March 16th, 2011 at 12:12 am

The main problem with abortion is that it gives a choice that nature never could and provides an alternative that everyone could live without, and also contradicts the notion of using violence/death as a last resort. (Orphanages are there for a reason, people.) Also, many women experience medical problems as a result of abortion. Forget about any gods or religion – do you think nature itself is trying to tell us something?

Shaunna Abkemeier Says:
November 12th, 2012 at 7:30 pm

There may be some thing incorrect with your site links. You should have a web designer have a look at it.

Olin Granstrom Says:
February 15th, 2016 at 8:07 pm

I have noticed that online diploma is getting preferred because getting your degree online has developed into a popular method for many people. Quite a few people have not really had a possible opportunity to attend a normal college or university nonetheless seek the raised earning possibilities and a better job that a Bachelor’s Degree gives you. Still others might have a qualification in one discipline but would like to pursue something they now have an interest in.

This Will Probably Not Trigger Any Discussion

74 Responses to “This Will Probably Not Trigger Any Discussion”

Leave a Reply