Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_EAllusion]

:::cough::polygamy::::cough:::

Even if you forget the awesomeness of Card, a Mormon, saying this, the prevalence of polygamy throughout many societies in history pokes some serious holes in what he is saying.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, here's a note to Card:

If the definition of marriage as entailing heterosexual relationships was universal, then you wouldn't be involved in a dispute over that point, now would you? You'd think living in a country where a significant portion of the populace is willing to call gay marriages marriages should clue one in to that.

[_The Dude]

Zombie Dude

But I really like PKD's movies! The core ideas are beautiful. It's just that I find the presentation so clunky and crying out for improvement, even if it has to come through Hollywood. Oh well.

Anyway, I think I understand OSC's point but I reject it for the reasons you mentioned. The courts aren't re-defining marriage, they are interpreting laws and constitutions. The legal rights we associate with marriage were not codified by cave men, but are modern inventions that should be open to expansion and alteration with the changing times.

It all goes back to why religious types are so offended by gay "marriage". Marriage is their special religious symbol and it can't be shared with gays or it looses specialness. I've said before that the gays might be better off inventing their own symbol and leave marriage to the traditionalists. Just as long as the courts hand out the same legal rights for both. (Note to OSC: the right to make a baby through reproductive intercourse is not a legal right, no matter what you think you learned from watching Monty Python's "The Life of Brian".)

[_EAllusion]

But I really like PKD's movies! The core ideas are beautiful. It's just that I find the presentation so clunky and crying out for improvement, even if it has to come through Hollywood. Oh well.

Have you read much PKD? I think most of his books/short stories are vastly better than the movies based on them. Blade Runner is a great film, but I prefer Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. While some of the adaptations have flirted with it, none of them have managed to capture his ability to disorient the reader's sense of reality. That was one of his strongest skills as writer. Movies like The Game end up being more Philip K. Dickian than actual adaptations of his works.

One of the problems with PKD is the wide range of quality in his writings, especially for someone who has achieved his status in literary circles. He also tended to be weak on writing conclusions. That's what writing novels in a few days while high as a kite and quite possibly crazy to score some quick cash will do for 'ya. But he also arguably has more masterpieces than any of his sci-fi peers from the 20th century, and many more quite good works. What have you read?

Some essential P.K. Dick:

A Scanner Darkly
Ubik (my personal fav)
The Man in the High Castle
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

Worth reading if you haven't.

It all goes back to why religious types are so offended by gay "marriage". Marriage is their special religious symbol and it can't be shared with gays or it looses specialness. I've said before that the gays might be better off inventing their own symbol and leave marriage to the traditionalists. Just as long as the courts hand out the same legal rights for both. (Note to OSC: the right to make a baby through reproductive intercourse is not a legal right, no matter what you think you learned from watching Monty Python's "The Life of Brian".)

I favor the government recognizing domestic partnership arrangements, heterosexual or homosexual, and not even using the term marriage to describe any relationship. People can call or not call their relationships marriage all they want in private. Insofar as the government is willing to call hetereo marriages marriages, it should do the same for homosexual ones.

[_Ray A]

Even looking at Card's ideas without the hyperbole, his ideas are ridiculous. No sane society interested in the welfare of all its citizens should act like this. It isn't the homosexuality that's criminal, it's Card's ideas.

In my country he wouldn't stand a chance before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But I understand it's different in the USA.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Marriage is their special religious symbol and it can't be shared with gays or it looses specialness. I've said before that the gays might be better off inventing their own symbol and leave marriage to the traditionalists.

I disagree. Marriage is more than just a religious symbol. It's a civil religious symbol. If Rousseau is to be believed, civil religion is a very important part of what holds any nation together. If gays are excluded from the symbols of our civil religion, then there is a very real sense in which they are being denied their identity as Americans and as citizens of our nation. Saying they should create their own symbols is like saying that they must find their own damn way to be American, because the rest of us have a monopoly on the old way.

[_The Dude]

Marriage is their special religious symbol and it can't be shared with gays or it looses specialness. I've said before that the gays might be better off inventing their own symbol and leave marriage to the traditionalists.

I disagree. Marriage is more than just a religious symbol. It's a civil religious symbol. If Rousseau is to be believed, civil religion is a very important part of what holds any nation together. If gays are excluded from the symbols of our civil religion, then there is a very real sense in which they are being denied their identity as Americans and as citizens of our nation. Saying they should create their own symbols is like saying that they must find their own damn way to be American, because the rest of us have a monopoly on the old way.

When I say maybe homosexuals should come up with their own symbol, I only mean this as a practical, temporary approach if the religious opposition proves to be too much. Do we really want another generation of acrimony on the same level (at least) as what Roe vs. Wade has delivered? In the end they gays shouldn't have to do this, pretty much for the reasons you mentioned (and others), but in this country it may not be realistic.

[_The Dude]

EAllusion:
I have read

The Man in the High Castle (my favorite)
Time out of Joint
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
and a bunch of short stories...

Best of all, however, was his biography, Divine Invasions, A Life of Philip K. Dick by Lawrence Sutin. Truly engrossing.

I'll give Ubik a try.

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you read much PKD? I think most of his books/short stories are vastly better than the movies based on them. Blade Runner is a great film, but I prefer Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. While some of the adaptations have flirted with it, none of them have managed to capture his ability to disorient the reader's sense of reality. That was one of his strongest skills as writer. Movies like The Game end up being more Philip K. Dickian than actual adaptations of his works.

One of the problems with PKD is the wide range of quality in his writings, especially for someone who has achieved his status in literary circles. He also tended to be weak on writing conclusions. That's what writing novels in a few days while high as a kite and quite possibly crazy to score some quick cash will do for 'ya. But he also arguably has more masterpieces than any of his sci-fi peers from the 20th century, and many more quite good works. What have you read?

Some essential P.K. Dick:

A Scanner Darkly
Ubik (my personal fav)
The Man in the High Castle
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

If I may weigh in: Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said is also quite good. I also recommend the oddly semi-autobiographical trilogy which begins with Valis. I agree that Ubik is a lot of fun. For my money, though, A Scanner Darkly is his best. And, just to be contrarian, if you want to read a clunker: Time Out of Joint.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Even looking at Card's ideas without the hyperbole, his ideas are ridiculous. No sane society interested in the welfare of all its citizens should act like this. It isn't the homosexuality that's criminal, it's Card's ideas.

In my country he wouldn't stand a chance before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But I understand it's different in the USA.

Good grief, Ray. Ideas "criminal"?

I'm grateful that we don't have thought police in the United States.