[Sloth]

A long read, but great sociological insight.

[Sloth]

bump

[RippleFire]

bump

[Tolik]

Orson Scott Card - moral clarity -  BUMP  [please freepmail me if you want or don't want to be pinged to Orson Scott Card political articles]

If you want to bookmark his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-orsonscottcard/browse

His own political website: http://www.ornery.org/index.html  is heavily populated by American- and other Leftists who are delightfully annoyed by Mr. Card's conservatism. He does not post on that site and its moderated by somebody else. He is a registered Democrat upset with hijacking of his party by the Left.

His literary, non-political website: http://www.hatrack.com

His fresh articles appear in the Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC: http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/  (before being posted permanently on his ornery website). He has 2 columns in the RhinoTimes: one on political/international events, and the second one: reviews on movies, books, and anything he wants (!). I check his and  Michael Medved's  reviews and found myself reliably relying on them.

[.cnI redruM]

If OSC doesn't want to join the GOP, he'd make a great 3rd Party candidate. He makes way too much sense to remain a Democrat.

[CCCnative]

bump

[r9etb]

Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process.

I do not believe in democracy, precisely because it relegates moral matters to the visceral whims of an uneducated and unpredictable public.

The Founders thought much the same way, which is why they created a Republic ("if [we] can keep it").

[Cicero]

As usual, Orson Scott Card is right on the money. But it's even better than usual. This is one of his strongest and best articles in some time.

Whether you believe in Darwinian evolution or traditional Christian morality (and the traditional morality of virtually every other society in world history until our perverted times), then the monogamous family is the only way you can build and pass on civilized values. A society that fails to reproduce itself and bring up its own young to reproduce themselves is bound to fail.

[Tanniker Smith]

Dang! I liked this -- and I haven't even finished it.

I just hope tomorrow doesn't come along with a "hoax notice" of any kind. In any case, it's a better read than "Ender's Game".

TS
...

[CatoRenasci]

Good read! I had no idea Card was so conservative.

[TheDon]

"Whether we home school our kids or not, we will withdraw them at an early age from any sense of belonging to contemporary American culture."

Very good insight, and it is already happening.

[King Black Robe]

You can't add a runway to an airport in America without years of carefully researched environmental impact statements. But you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society without political process or serious research.

Amazing.

[Eva]

The real danger in redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships is the effect that this will have on religious freedom. All religions which oppose homosexuality will be declared bigoted and discriminatory. The left will have won. They will have instituted state control of religion, through the back door.

Maybe this is part of the reason they are so afraid of Mel Gibson's movie, it will make people that much more difficult to control.

[ahayes]

My respect for Orson Scott Card grows every time I read one of his articles. Let's hope this trend continues!

[PogySailor]

Wow, what an excellent post. I've always enjoyed OSC as a sci-fi writer, but I'm really beginning to respect his political writings also.

[Sloth]

Can you please correct the spelling of 'civilization' (add the Z) in the title? Thanks.

[Snuffington]

Excellent article. A rather good answer to those who suggest gay marriage won't hurt anybody.

[Teacher317]

He's got to be my favorite Democrat of all time, or at least in the top 3.

[DameAutour]

What an excellent, excellent article by a Bush Democrat. It's long, but it has to be long to cover the subject so convincingly, so thoroughly.

If homosexuals are allowed to "marry" others of the same sex, they will not have actually married. That's not a "marriage". But the word "marriage" will cease to have much meaning for all except those of us who refuse to cave. And those ones will be marginalized and their children "reprogrammed" in the public schools.

They're taking words like "family", "rights", "love", "marriage" etc, and radically redefining them.

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

Exactly! And this is why I am disturbed when some so-called conservatives claim to support homosexual "marriage", as if it is no big deal to call a homosexual relationship a marriage.

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

Spot-on. This isn't about "love" or "values" or "rights". This is part of the Left's long-established agenda of breaking down and destroying the family. This is a big battle in the culture war.

Of course, in our current society we are two generations into the systematic destruction of the institution of marriage. In my childhood, it was rare to know someone whose parents were divorced; now, it seems almost as rare to find someone whose parents have never been divorced.

How sad. And how sad for the children who have to grow up in a society such as this. Such an uncivilized and unstable people cannot govern themselves.

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

This article should also be read by all of those conservatives who are having a difficult time understanding why the government is involved with marriage at all. That's not really a conservative view, it's a libertarian view, but it is held by quite a few on this forum.

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

They are intolerant of heterosexuals. Heterophobia seems much more real than homophobia. They are doing whatever they can to destroy society's natural preference for heterosexual relationships, and demonizing it at every turn. Are there are any healthy marriages on television anymore? They are stealing from our children the very concepts of "marriage" and "family". It is an outrageous assault.

So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.

No matter what, things cannot stay as they are now.

[jimt]

Excellent post. Thanks !

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Bookmark this for later reading if you don't have time now. Orson Scott Card writes good books, too (the couple I've read). It looks to be a very good analysis.

Let me know if you want on/off this list.