Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Did you read the opening post? Did you read the link I posted to the article that provides context for the quote? Really?

I did. That's why I reject your summary of it.

He doesn't call for the overthrow of the government and/or the establishment of a theocracy.

Period.

OSC's views on "respect and support marriage" are religious. So the government he wants is one that enforces his religious views (on this issue at least).

That's dubious.

But surely you're not calliing for a government based solely and entirely on, say, empirically demonstrably science as opposed to moral intuitions. Are you?

[_EAllusion]

]

But surely you're not calliing for a government based solely and entirely on, say, empirically demonstrably science as opposed to moral intuitions. Are you?

OSC isn't a moral intuitionist, though. He's not suggesting the government be overthrown for being out of line with his moral intuition. Again, he offers secular arguments for his positions. Heck, I even linked a thread containing his case against gay marriage and even posted one of his main arguments here. That he is willing to advocate violent overthrow of the government over this is extremely messed up, but he isn't explicitly favoring enforcement of his religion per se.

[Tator]

The cracked article was hilarious, as was Card's article, for entirely different reasons.

I particularly enjoyed this blast from the past:

Card:

Furthermore, the Lord even guides the sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.

Durn tootin!! Don't get that (fill in the blank) near the (fill in the blank). That's gross and dirty!!!

For consistency's sake, I think Card should support a movement in the church to select certain married LDS folks who are not behaving sexually "responsibly" and in a "proportionate role" to be disciplined as an example.

Sure, this would require lots of intrusive questions, but surely The Lord wouldn't support going after gays and turning a blind eye to the equally important married hetero group, who, evidently, have the potential to really, really, really make Jesus cry when he watches their bedroom antics.

(removed one portion due to not being able to relocate Card's statement that prompted it)

[_Daniel Peterson]

OSC isn't a moral intuitionist, though. He's not suggesting the government be overthrown for being out of line with his moral intuition. Again, he offers secular arguments for his positions.

I think you've missed my point.

That he is willing to advocate violent overthrow of the government over this is extremely messed up

He doesn't.

You forget: I've actually read the article.

[_beastie]

Perhaps someone is being clever with the definition of "destroy".

[_Tarski]

quotes Card

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

This is a permanent fact of nature.

So Card thinks Congress aims to change nature? To decree grey is green? To declare blind = sighted? To enforce the new rule that 1+1 = 3? What a loony. Completely unhinged.

Silly isn't it? And here I had heard he was so intelligent!

By the way, does he really think marriage is a fact of nature like child birth is a fact of nature?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps someone is being clever with the definition of "destroy".

Nope. Someone has simply read the article carefully to learn what it actually says.

I'm really quite surprised at the rampant misreading going on here. The difference between what Scott Card actually says and what is being attributed to him is subtly expressed, but enormous.

[_Tarski]

any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down

Seems clear to me. If the US government endorses same sex marriage then the government, the US government, will be O.S. Card's mortal enemy. He will act to destroy it (the US government).
He did not say he would vote to change it. He said he would see to destroy it and bring it down.
At least he was clear in those sentences.

It's a promise of attempted destruction of the sovereign power of the US government and/or sedition.

Note also that if, counterfactually, hetero-marriage was a fact of nature, it would do nothing to prove his position since many facts of nature are echewed as undesirable by good people (violence, disease etc).

So he is wrong squared.

[_EAllusion]

I think you've missed my point.

Nah. I'm explaining why, instead of "moral intuitions" a phrase like, "moral arguments" would've better worked. Moral intiuitions has the drawback of not being related to what OSC thinks.

Nope. Someone has simply read the article carefully to learn what it actually says.

I read it carefully. I'm thinking that someone is you.

Here it is:

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

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.

It comes down to what you want to take out of the word destroy and the surrounding context. "This is revolution-worthy" is what the context suggests, not "angry letter campaign." After all, he calls that a response to "dictators" and favors rejecting the government's authority. Since he just says "destroy the government" you can be generous if you so choose and allow for more rhetorically cute methods of "destroying the government." But make no mistake, acts like voting politicians into or out of office to change policy or amending constitutions are only "destroying the government and bringing it down" by streeeetching it bigtime. Actual bringing down of the government, which is what he is talking about, is going to take a military takeover.

I'm really quite surprised at the rampant misreading going on here. The difference between what Scott Card actually says and what is being attributed to him is subtly expressed, but enormous.

If I'm included in this, then no.

Hey DCP. What do you think of OSC's arguments?

...

...

I know. I know. But I was going to ask anyway.

[_beastie]

This was the quote I looked for earlier and missed:

help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

How would gay people getting married prevent his children from expecting to marry in their turn?