"Biological imperatives trump laws."
Quick ... who said that? Evil Darwinist? Nazi eugenicist? Liberal professor? Nope to all three.
Answer is Orson Scott Card - sci-fi hack, proponent of guiltless genocide, and anti-Darwinist - in a screed against gay marriage. One is left wondering whether rape is OK to Card - after all, spreading your seed is one of those "biological imperatives".
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.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
(Hat-tip to Ed.)
I guess I hadn't realized that getting married was a biological imperative. Mating may be a biological imperative, but marriage, not so much. It's also amusingly ironic for a Mormon to claim that the biological imperative means that marriage has to be between one man and one woman.
He also said something to the effect of "if the Democrats win in 2006 Iran will destroy the USA".
That would have been my first, and last, visit to his website :P
Exactly how are Card's kids being denied an expectation to get married? Unless he's hoping that if they're gay they marry opposite sex anyhow?
People like him make me angry.
American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure.
Well, then, it's a good thing that we're promoting marriage by allowing more people to marry!
It would be helpful if Card and others who want to restrict marriage to only a man and a woman would explain why they are so intent on restricting marriage. Asserting that 'it is traditional' or some similar canard does not enlighten a person, it only suggests a limited capacity to handle change or evaluate their own reasoning.
(I am also curious as to why macho military personnel are worried about having gay folk in their units. You would think these big tough men would be able to handle a little non-competition for a woman's favors from another male, but no - a hint of gay in the neighborhood and they all start whining and complaining. Perhaps 'macho and tough' as a way of dealing with the world is not the best approach if it is so easy to panic the 'tough guys' of the world.)
Card and his ilk remind me of the fable by Aesop of the Dog in the Manger.
Jefferson comes to mind. "It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."
Any set of consenting adults should have the same rights as any other set. In theory, I could not exclude polygamist marriages, as long as consenting and adult remain a requirement for all of the participants. What worries me about the practise of plural marriages on the other hand is how easily they become corrupt and abusive.
However, looking at this more closely, man-man and woman-woman marriages might be much less likely to be abusive. The abuse we see in man-woman-woman... marriages is also to be found in man-woman marriages.
Perhaps homosexual marriages do impact heterosexual ones, by potentially holding them in a bad light. Male privilege as condoned by religious patriarchy is the underlying problem.
So, Card says he wants the government to support marriage by restricting some people from getting married? What? How does that work? I think same sex and even plural marriages should be allowed just like hetero marriages (if all are consenting adults). After all, misery loves company.
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
I did not think that the author of Ender's Game was so batshit insane....
Exactly right, Moopheus. A legal/religious institution is a biological imperative? What Card says is off-the-wall ridiculous.