Orson Scott Card: On Fairness and Families [Gay Marriage]

The Ornery American ^ | March 28, 2004 | Orson Scott Card

[Tolik]

We have vast scientific and statistical evidence already that children thrive best in families that have one father and one mother, who pool their financial resources, are sexually faithful to each other, and remain married to each other until they are parted by death, and provide for their children to the best of their ability.

In all the criticism of "traditional values" and all the attacks on "dysfunctional families," it's good to remember that nobody has yet invented a better system.

And until we have a better system, it makes no sense at all to destroy the last vestige of the old system.

So when you hear someone talk about how "extending marriage to gay people" is "simple fairness," think again. Is it fair to the children who will grow up in a society that insists on magnifying any trace of reproductive dysfunction? Is it fair for all of us to be forced to raise our children without public encouragement for reproductive normality and monogamous, heterosexual, lifetime marriages?

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.

[Paul Atreides]

"Suppose we buy a dress for your sister," I said to my son. "Would you want us to get a dress for you too?"

Today's parents would cringe at the thought of asking that question.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
50	Panama	25.00	1	25.00

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Lando Lincoln]

Bump and thanks!

Lando

[King Black Robe]

Like it or not, every homosexual is the product of heterosexuality. Protecting heterosexual unions and marriages protects every born child, regardless of their future lifestyle choices.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Paradox]

A very interesting essay by OSC. In it, you can clearly see he Democrat tendencies (he is a registered Democrat after all). He makes a good point about fairness and all, although I don't think it is one of his stronger essays.

[Sweet Land]

"Suppose we buy a dress for your sister," I said to my son. "Would you want us to get a dress for you too?"

If being brought up in a dress was good enough for John Kerry, it's good enough for other boys.

[theFIRMbss]

>But it is grossly unfair to demand, in the name of "fairness," that the normal pattern of marriage and family be deprived of its privileged position in our society, just so a few people can feel better about dysfunctions that even they insist are nobody's fault.

I think gay people
regard themselves as "normal"
just different, and

I do not think they
call themselves dysfunctional.
Are there gay Freepers?

[steve-b]

Card's analogy fails because a tax deduction is not a granting of privilege (it is, rather, a reduction in the amount of infringement upon property rights). This confusion is similar to the leftist definition of government "budget cuts" (i.e. a smaller increase than anticipated).

The proper answer remains, as in so many cases, the separation of state and [whatever societal institution has gotten screwed up this time].

[Tolik]

Yes, there are differences in our approach. But it is something for normal debate. As he himself pointed out a number of times, the debate/dialog deteriorated to name calling and hate mostly because of the left hijacking the DP. He, like Zell Miller and other conservative democrats are people without a party. The DP is too left for them, and there are things that are not suiting them in the RP (which is OK, we don't want everyone think the same :)).

[freeangel]

However, the homosexual community would think it's swell.--bad analogy.

[frgoff]

Biologically, the purpose of human sexuality is the reproduction of the human species. Therefore, by definition, homosexuality is dysfunctional. What homosexuals themselves choose to call it is irrelevant.

[Paul Atreides]

I hear that Kerry can do a mean Can-Can.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Only slightly off-topic:

Ender's Game...The Movie.

[Oberon]

bump for later.

[theFIRMbss]

>Biologically, the purpose of human sexuality is the reproduction of the human species. Therefore, by definition, homosexuality is dysfunctional. What homosexuals themselves choose to call it is irrelevant.

So we presume. But
evolutionists would say
homosexuals

have been around for
hundreds of generations,
they fill some purpose.

And religious folk
might say sexuality
exists to make kids,

yeah, but mainly as
a trial of our faith. My point
is only that sex

might not be as cut
and dried as your post puts it.
Or maybe it is.

[Grig]

Earlier on he refered to them as being reproductivly dysfunctional, gays may not like the wording of that, but they can't dispute the fact that homosexual relationships don't create kids.

[Triple Word Score]

Phooey. I'm a parent today and I had my 10-year-old daughter read this article and we talked about it.

You mean LIBERAL parents....