Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_Ray A]

I think Card's use of the word "destroy" is a bit melodramatic. It just emphasises how he feels. I can't see him, or any Mormon, assembling militia to overthrow a government. I think he means nothing more, nor less, than the humble ballot box.

"Destroy" = emotional metaphor. Get rid of them at the ballot box.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My disappointment is in the reading level here. I don't think the problem is intelligence; several on this thread are plainly quite bright. I suspect that the problem is compounded of ideological tribalism and knee-jerk reactions.

The winning door, incidentally, was Door #2.

Absolutely, unambiguously, beyond question Door #2.

[_moksha]

From the Dude's link:

Orson Scott Card @ Mormon Times: Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

Now what could by "any means possible or necessary" include? Perhaps a bake sale, painting the Y bright red or maybe a Jihad? Only Dr. Peterson can interpret this precisely.

[_beastie]

In my experience, those who respond to DCP aren't addressing his actual comments. I get a whiff of apologetic zeal as ideological homosexualists defend their agenda. Beastie's oversenstive hyperventilating only demonstrates this.

I'm not impressed. And I will have you know that Doctor Dr. Jeffery Satinover, Ed.M., M.S., M.D., A.B.P.N.. who has obtained a degree from MIT, graduate degrees from Harvard and Yale, a M.D. from the University of Texas, and is working on a Ph.D in physics at the University of Nice would agree by and large agree with Card here. He practiced clinical psychiatry for almost 20 years, including being a fellowshipped child psychiatrist at Yale.

You can read his work:

(1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker

It was written in crayon and no doubt is wall-to-wall mendacity of the sort that makes Charles Manson look like a prissy kitten.

Oooo, you’re good. ;)

My disappointment is in the reading level here. I don't think the problem is intelligence; several on this thread are plainly quite bright. I suspect that the problem is compounded of ideological tribalism and knee-jerk reactions.

The winning door, incidentally, was Door #2.

Absolutely, unambiguously, beyond question Door #2.

Funny how even door number 2 ends up sounding like door number 3.

But DCP is right, no doubt. It would take idiocracy of immense degree for anyone to read Card’s words as advocating overthrow of the government.

He’s obviously just asking rhetorical, philosophical questions, kind of like Brigham Young did here:

"Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?"

[_antishock8]

I love all this clever posturing by believers. Let's just cut to the chase:

What's your solution to the Homosexual Question?

[_EAllusion]

My disappointment is in the reading level here.

Funnily enough, I share the same disappointment with you.

The winning door, incidentally, was Door #2.

Awesome. So now our more sane Card is just arguing that it will be only a matter of time before married people seek to destroy the government in response to acceptance of gay marriage, etc. The upshot of this interpretation is Card then would not be advocating overthrowing the government. The downside is that it is 1) still totally bonkers and 2) a rather unreasonable interpretation of his unambiguous rhetorical setup for what he thought would be the appropriate response to those "dictators."

In the other thread, you suggested that the term homophobe is unfairly lobbed at those who merely fail to be in lockstep with some homosexualist agenda. I pointed out that even if we had a different term that meant "bigoted towards gays" most of the people being called bigots with the term "homophobe" still would object to the label even if it had nothing to do with fear. As it happens, the most common reply I see to people objecting to being referred to as homophobes because of their bigotry towards gays is the complaint that they are being unfairly maligned because of a reasonable disagreement with homosexual agenda, failing to be P.C., etc.

Well, Orson Scott Card is about has blatant of an example of a person bigoted towards gays as one could hope for. We know you've read him write things like:

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

And

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage."

They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them."

So would you concur that Orson Scott Card holds tremendously bigoted views towards gays?

(I'll be taking 50/1 odds that DCP does not concur)

[_EAllusion]

Okay, I was reading between the lines. What do you think he has in mind, once he destroys and brings down the government?

One that makes a better effort to suppress homosexuals, indoctrinate our children against them, and disallows gay marriage.

[_The Nehor]

I love all this clever posturing by believers. Let's just cut to the chase:

What's your solution to the Homosexual Question?

Do what the Savior did with sinners. To those who knew it was sin and struggled, show compassion and aid them on their way to forgiveness.

To those who say it is not sin, combat them as he combated the Pharisees. If we emulate the Savior we can call them fools and point out they will not escape the damnation of hell.

[_EAllusion]

I'd just like to say that Philip K. Dick was, at times, a brilliant writer, and more often quite good. Along with Nabokov and Barthelme, he is my favorite writer of the 20th century.

You rock P.K. Dick.

http://www.themodernword.com/SCRIPTorium/dick.html

The Dude is dead to me.

[_beastie]

I'm betting that Card's arguments would sound eerily similar to arguments made against desegregation and interracial marriage.