Thursday, August 14, 2008

Funniest response so far to Orson Scott Card's nutty rant against gay marriage.

This essay by Michael Swain is not only the best response I've seen to the whole OSC homophobia brou-ha-ha, it is by far the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Some choice excerpts:
And really, what the hell does it matter to you if two hot lesbians want to settle down and be respectable (which isn’t the way I like my hot lesbians either, believe me)? Until such a time as they bring down your property values with raging lesbian drug orgies, you’ve got nothing legitimate to complain about, and even then, I’ll trade houses with you.
and this...
Clearly you have taken it upon yourself to prioritize certain portions of the Bible. I am forced to ask then, why in the world would you choose to prioritize the relatively tiny portion about hating and oppressing your fellow men and women, instead of giving precedence to the mountain of passages espousing the virtues of love and compassion for all of God’s children? Or at least the hilarious parts about people having sex with gold statues (Ezekiel 16:17 NIV)?

What would Jesus do? If you can answer that question with anything other than “shower the world with endless love and understanding, then flip a wicked ollie on a flaming skateboard,” then you and I have a very different understanding of the man.
Just go read the whole thing. (Via Kameron Hurley)


Kirsten Hubbard said...

I am absolutely devastated. One of my favorite books is tainted forever. A big FAIL on Orson.

But what a great article!

Scott said...

An excerpt from my own reaction at


I do, however, feel the need to point out the hypocrisy and lack of logic in one of his key statements. Card says:

"There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government."

Well, OK. Let's grant him that, just for the sake of argument. It's actually not far from how I feel. Government should be in business to protect and support those being governed (although, typically, it's in business to protect and support those in power). The flaw in his statement, however, is that Prop. 8 is not seeking to redefine anything. Prop. 8 is seeking to define marriage in the first place.

If we grant Card his argument that the government does not have the right to redefine marriage because marriage is older than government, then we also have to grant the real meaning of what Card is saying, that government does not have the authority to define marriage at all.

The State of California does not have the authority, then, to legislate that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,"as stated in the proposition.

pseudosu said...

I have no interest in entering a political debate, but side squarely with the "love is never the wrong answer" people, and of course, the super funny smart asses. Awesome post.

C. Taylor said...

Okay. A major warning. This is one of those few topics that always sends me into a rant.

I just do NOT get why people think that what two consenting adults do, behind closed doors, is any of their business or the business of the government. And why wouldn't those two people be entitled to the same rights as every other person in this country? What happened to the seperation of church and state? I'm so tired of our government making laws based on the bible. What if your not Christian? It has been known to happen.

Maybe instead of being concerned about gay adults getting married, they should worry about old men forcing 12 year old girls to get married and become one of their concubines, ahem sorry, wives.

Thank the gods I live in Massachusetts. I'm proud to say that not only is gay marriage legal, but the state legislature also went as far as to strike an old law from the books, thus allowing gays from out of state to come here to get married. I can only hope the rest of the country will someday follow suit.

sex scenes at starbucks said...

You love who you love. End of story.

(It wouldn't sell, but isn't it a nice one?)

Jeff said...

If two lesbians married two gay men and lived together, the men in one bedroom, the women in the other, they would still be homosexual, yet they would all be legally married and enjoying the benefits of that legal status. Should we make that illegal?

If a man marries one woman but lives with two, he is only guilty of bigamy if he tries to formalize the second relationship. Why? In all other respects, except for the formal recognition by the STATE, it is bigamy. Shouldn't we make adultery illegal, too.

If two people live together in a state resembling marriage, yet they don't get married, isn't this also a threat to traditional marriage and shouldn't this also be made illegal?

Where does it stop?

I'll tell you where it stops. It stops at the bedroom door of those who would tell other people how to live and who to love.

VELMA SABINA!!! said...

homophobes are so annoying, can't stand 'em. BARF!!!!!!!!