![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
What with one thing and another, I'm late reading Orson Scott Card's thoughts on why gay marriage would signal the end of civilization as we know it (thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
brooklinegirl for the link). And I realize that, in dealing with persons of faith, rational argument is generally fruitless, since they hold the eternal high ground from which they can cry But it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong!
Still. I wanted to say a thing.
Mr. Card remarks that, "The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that "day" shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as "night," but it might as well. "
I find this interesting because, given that Mr. Card is a writer of science fiction, one might expect him to know that the word 'day' has two meanings: one, the period of daylight, and two, the length of a single rotation of the earth, which, from the perspective of a fixed point on the planet's surface, includes both the daylight period and that which is otherwise known as "night." So if the Massachusetts legislature should at some point choose to clarify that their usages of the term 'day' refer to this latter extant definition (which is more precise and in any case more commonly used in technical settings), I would think that all sensible people with some knowledge of science, including Mr. Card himself, would have to approve.
Mr. Card goes on to assert that, "no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society."
This is, strictly speaking, absolutely true, from what I know of the Federal document (I'm not sure whether any state constitutions enshrine judicial review as fundamental law, but I'll assume that Mr. Card knows what he's talking about here). The fact stands that the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison did establish the right of the courts to overturn laws made by the other branches of government, and that that precedent has been respected in this country for a good solid two hundred years. If we want to talk about upholding traditional American values, can we put judicial review at the top of the list?
Mr. Card fears that "any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for 'hate speech'."
The last time I heard about a six-year-old boy being removed from his school for talking about a gay couple setting up housekeeping together and starting a family, it was because he was explaining to a classmate why he had two mothers. I don't think children who, in their pure and wondering innocence, wish to deny others the right to arrange their personal lives as they see fit are really the ones in danger of missing school in this country and this age.
Mr. Card is also concerened that, "the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill."
(Many, many more eloquent and timely people than I have addressed the laughability of marriage having had any single "fundamental meaning" "everywhere, until this generation," so on this point I shall be silent.)
Likewise; I think the last time the DSM listed a mental illness relating in any way to homosexuality it was being homosexual that was mean to be treated as a sickness. So far as I understand it, the APA accepts that being ignorant and intolerant is just a normal part of the human condition.
And this is the part where I realize exactly how long and irrational and stomach-churning this article is, and that there's no way I can refute all this man's points before lunchtime. Maybe I'll just go find a high ground of my own to stand on, and whisper back Love is love, change is inevitable, be not afraid, for a little while. It couldn't hurt.
Edited to close the dangling bracket that ate a few paragraphs of my argument. Oops.
brooklinegirl for the link). And I realize that, in dealing with persons of faith, rational argument is generally fruitless, since they hold the eternal high ground from which they can cry But it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong!Still. I wanted to say a thing.
Mr. Card remarks that, "The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that "day" shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as "night," but it might as well. "
I find this interesting because, given that Mr. Card is a writer of science fiction, one might expect him to know that the word 'day' has two meanings: one, the period of daylight, and two, the length of a single rotation of the earth, which, from the perspective of a fixed point on the planet's surface, includes both the daylight period and that which is otherwise known as "night." So if the Massachusetts legislature should at some point choose to clarify that their usages of the term 'day' refer to this latter extant definition (which is more precise and in any case more commonly used in technical settings), I would think that all sensible people with some knowledge of science, including Mr. Card himself, would have to approve.
Mr. Card goes on to assert that, "no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society."
This is, strictly speaking, absolutely true, from what I know of the Federal document (I'm not sure whether any state constitutions enshrine judicial review as fundamental law, but I'll assume that Mr. Card knows what he's talking about here). The fact stands that the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison did establish the right of the courts to overturn laws made by the other branches of government, and that that precedent has been respected in this country for a good solid two hundred years. If we want to talk about upholding traditional American values, can we put judicial review at the top of the list?
Mr. Card fears that "any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for 'hate speech'."
The last time I heard about a six-year-old boy being removed from his school for talking about a gay couple setting up housekeeping together and starting a family, it was because he was explaining to a classmate why he had two mothers. I don't think children who, in their pure and wondering innocence, wish to deny others the right to arrange their personal lives as they see fit are really the ones in danger of missing school in this country and this age.
Mr. Card is also concerened that, "the fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill."
(Many, many more eloquent and timely people than I have addressed the laughability of marriage having had any single "fundamental meaning" "everywhere, until this generation," so on this point I shall be silent.)
Likewise; I think the last time the DSM listed a mental illness relating in any way to homosexuality it was being homosexual that was mean to be treated as a sickness. So far as I understand it, the APA accepts that being ignorant and intolerant is just a normal part of the human condition.
And this is the part where I realize exactly how long and irrational and stomach-churning this article is, and that there's no way I can refute all this man's points before lunchtime. Maybe I'll just go find a high ground of my own to stand on, and whisper back Love is love, change is inevitable, be not afraid, for a little while. It couldn't hurt.
Edited to close the dangling bracket that ate a few paragraphs of my argument. Oops.