Orson Scott Card explains his opposition to gay marriage, at much, much greater length than quoted here: "So if my friends insist on calling what they do 'marriage,' they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
"Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
"They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes. "
I must say, if I accepted Card's premises (among them, that the whole purpose of marriage is procreation; that if I get married to another guy that the entire institution of marriage-for-child-nurturing is invalidated; and that the tyranny of the majority is a good thing) I would find this article quite persuasive.
As it is I find it well worth reading as a starting point for me to question things I've taken for granted in this debate. A lot of the debate on same-sex marriage seems to be founded in an assumption that the other side is so obviously wrong that their arguments are not to be taken seriously. This is not productive; where's the common ground?
This doesn't mean I don't resent Card saying, for instance, that RP and I are in effect just playing house. or that it's reasonable for me to consider marrying a woman for the benefits of marriage. (Somebody tell me how that's not fraud.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment