Its meaning is universal. (Pardon me while I delete five countries from the universe.)

[therealjae]

There are so many things to be annoyed by in Orson Scott Card's latest tirade about how men marrying men and women marrying women is going to spell the automatic downfall of U.S. culture, civilization, democracy, and constitution. matociquala already mentioned most of themBut there's one more thing that Card is forgetting (or conveniently leaving out) when

Comments

[locketportrait]

Yeah, if I had to put money on it, I'd bet on (c).

[redbird]

Haven't you had it since 2003 as well? Or am I misremembering what I saw in the Montreal Gazette last month about how it's now just a given, five years later?

[therealjae]

The Supreme Court decision that paved its way was five years ago, but the legislation wasn't until 2005 (spring, if I recall correctly).

-J

[redbird]

Thanks.

[fabfemmeboy]

I would have to say it's about America being oh so special and unique. It's the same type of argument we use against gun control: we have a special history of gun use and taking that away would cause a societal downfall. Nevermind that plenty of countries with gun-filled pasts already control handgun ownership, and it's been largely beneficial.

Come to think of it, conservatives use the same rationale to ban gay military service. After all, if straights are forced to serve with gays, the entire military will fall apart. What about the countries serving alongside us in Iraq that allow gays? Are we American queers more aggressive by nature or something?

The consistent lack of logic astounds me.

[therealjae]

And what's with those of us who grew up in the U.S. and then left? Do we stop being more aggressive then, or do those accursed American aggressiveness genes haunt us evermore? ;-)

-J

[ex_fandrogy]

You know, what's a wee bit scary is that you could see embryonic reasoning toward this eventual point in the third Ender novel.

Also, when we Canadians inevitably devolve into chaos, who's with me? I vote we create an RP for just this purpose. (No, seriously, we should totally invent a Sim Canada where gay marriage brings us down and not, say, our stubborn refusal to nationalise oil or water resources. And then we should play it out. To highlight the absurdity.)

[therealjae]

you could see embryonic reasoning toward this eventual point in the third Ender novel.

Wait, what??? Explain!

-J

[ex_fandrogy]

I believe it's the third. Maybe the fourth? Anyway, at some point Valentine begins discussing evolutionary anthropology, and why men remaining faithful to women is this constant battle of the sexes that boils down to two reproductive imperatives that mean different things to the course of civilization. If I remember correctly (and it's been a while) Valentine explains that women are/were basically the keepers of civilization because they figure(d) out ways of keeping men around to provide stable environments for children, whereas men are animals who have/had to be tamed and penned up in order to become good fathers. There are plenty of examples of good and bad father figures in the books, and good, healthy examples of married and parental love, but that one little rant on Val's part always struck me as a little odd because I hadn't seen it foreshadowed anywhere in her appearances on the page. (Granted, anyone who collaborated so long with Peter might begin to see humanity as a bleak proposition altogether.) Given that later in the

[therealjae]

Oh, my god, my brain hurts. But I can see it now, thanks. (Um, I think.)

-J

[wild_irises]

I have another gripe against that article, which is that he writes as if the U.S. courts have never, ever before gone against the apparent will of the people. Therefore, the death of democracy will be happening for the first time because of gay marriage.

*sigh*

[therealjae]

Good point!

-J