Oh Noes! Not Orson Scot Card!!

I had originally considered posting this on my SF blog, No Krakana, yet the more I wrote, the more I realized that it would fit better here. So, on with the show.

io9 has directed my attention to an interesting discussion that's been popping up around the SF/F genre blogs. Mainly, that Card has won the Margaret A. Edwards award, which is defined as thus:

The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.

Anyhow, they brought into specific focus, Card's two complementary novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. Truth be told, these are two wonderful stories, with great overtones dealing with human nature, civilization, and just how a child transforms into an adult.

Yet, what's brought up the most hassles are some of Card's other writings, specifically his thoughts and opinions on homosexual marriage.

One can imagine the joys of the SF Feminist blog and (amusingly enough) the School Library Journal, and one can't forget the diatribes over in the comments for the article on io9. Overall, they've been along the lines of "well, he's evil incarnate for saying the things he does in his non-fiction essays, but you know, we'll just sweep it under the rugs."

Frankly, I'm amused by this whole thing. I can admit to being conservative (a night upon unforgivable sin in the world of the SF/F genre fandom) yet there have been liberals who have received lifetime achievements awards; though I despise Streisand's stance on gun control, that doesn't mean that I dislike her films or music.

But ultimately, that's an irrelevant point. Who cares if you can or can't separate the art from the artist.

Has Card not entertained, and taught a generation of children the joy of books? Do those books not teach us to try and see the other? Whether that other is the alien "buggers" or the bully who wishes to kill you?

As far as the Award is concerned, that is what matters.

Beyond that though, why the angst over his opinions? I don't agree with John Scalzi's politics but I absolutely adore his novels. I agree with Card's politics, and I absolutely adore his novels. Wow, imagine that, I love well-written novels that I find intriguing, regardless of the world views of the authors.

Fortunately though, the SF Feminist blog is more interested in actual discourse and discussion about Card's opinions and essays (including a well written dissection of one of Card's essays on the Mass. Supreme Court's fiat creating same-sex marriage in that state).

But that's not relevant to the discussion here, as it's a discourse on the existing articles rather than what we're talking about here.

What I find oddest is that all the comments that I've read have fallen on one of two sides of this divide. The first is that Card should have never gotten the award for being such an evil right-winger. The second is Card should have gotten the award because the two books in question are good, but he's still an evil right-winger.

And I do mean all, I've just spent the past three hours looking at every blog entry concerning this, and every comment on those blog posts. Maybe there will be additional thoughts from people on my side of the aisle now that io9 has pushed it out, but sadly I'm not counting on it.

I for one, am offering up a heartfelt "Congratulations, Mr. Card."

I don't think he's evil; I don't think he's ignorant or unlettered. I don't even think he's an "asshat" (sure the rant referenced in that article is nigh upon incoherent, but that doesn't mean he's evil, just that he has a hard time separating criticisms of his novel from criticisms of himself--an affliction which other authors have had many times).

In fact, I'm going on the record as stating that I believe the same way as Mr. Card regarding homosexual "marriages." I believe they are an attack, by liberal elites (socialists/communists), directed against the fundamental building blocks of Western civilization. Consider numbers, 25, 26, and 40 on this list of ways that Communists planned on destroying Western Civilization.

• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
  
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

In fact that the number of items on that list are completed, or nearly so, is disturbing.

But, I do want to know what is it about genre fandom which breeds liberalism?

Barney Frank, Fighting for Gay Marriages

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) believes that an "angry, divisive" fight is coming to Massachusetts. What is this fight? Why a proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages that amendment proponents are attempting to get on the 2008 ballot.

The Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has gathered 124,000 certified signatures (double the number required). MFI's president has gone on the record as saying "All they want is an opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage."

What is Mr. Frank's response? Why he's quoted in an AP interview as saying "Basically, they're the disturbers of the civic peace, we now have social peace in Massachusetts. They're the ones who want to stir it up…This is a non-issue in Massachusetts."

Wow, Mr. Frank sure is in-touch with his constituents. If he was, then he would see that the 124,000 certified signatures do mean that this is an issue in Massachusetts. What Mr. Frank means when he says that this is a non-issue, is what any liberal means by that statement: we have the rules in place, now anyone who does not agree with them needs to shut up and sit down.

Whenever pressed, normal, run-of-the-mill Americans have resoundingly supported bans on gay marriages. That is the reason that those pushing the homosexual agenda turned to the courts. They know they cannot win if this is put up for a vote which normal Americans must vote on. Now that they have this moronic ruling in place, they are trying their best to ensure that it stays there. If that means ignoring huge segments of the voting populace's desires, then so be it.

What gets me is that while MFI was gathering these signatures, there was no angry, divisive fighting. MFI gathered signatures quietly, and turned them in without that much hoopla. Oh, but once they were turned in, then the divisive fighting started. KnowThyNeighbor, a pro-gay marriage website has published the full listing of 124,000 people on the list, because they are certain that there's fraud afoot. I personally have no doubt that there may be some folks on the list that should not be, as the company that was chosen to do the actual signature gathering has had trouble in the past with fraudulent signatures.

Regardless, If those people who wish to redefine the fundamental concepts of marriage and civilization really believe that the people of Massachusetts see this amendment as a non-issue, and they believe that the citizens of Massachusetts truly support the slow destruction of marriage, then they would have no problems allowing this amendment to go to the ballots. The problem there lies in the fact that those who believe so, know that the citizens of Massachusetts would vote for the amendment which supports the definition of marriage.

They do not want this to go to the ballot, because they want to ensure that a cornerstone of our society is changed, and not for the better. Of course, if we keep poking holes into the foundation of our society like this, pretty soon, our foundation will not be able to support our society.

The Unhappy Marriage.......Counselor

A little searching on the net has found out a rant just waiting to be hatched.

Again, here's the qoute of the day:

William Pinsof, a respected family therapist and editor of Family Process Journal, has just devoted a whole issue to the idea that preventing divorce is, well, a bad idea. "Divorce, Living Together Are New Norms," screamed the headline in USA Today. "It is time to move beyond thinking about the divorce rate as an indicator of a social disorder that must be reduced, to thinking about it more neutrally and inquisitively," Pinsoff writes. Divorce should be regarded as one of the "normal social events in the life course of modern families."

WHY MARRIAGE COUNSELING FAILS By Maggie Gallagher

Besides the shock that rolls off me due to the incredible denseness of these statements, I can't help but wonder, "Why is this guy a marriage counselor?" I would think a marriage counselor would actively strive to keep people's marriage togethor. I would think that they would see a divorce as a great and mighty failure.

Apparently I was wrong.

Need I say this again? Marriage is ordained by God as THE covenant between a (again note singular) man, a woman and God. God gave no room for divorce. God gave no room for infidelity. When God created the marriage union, he didn't give Adam a choice, He said, "Adam, here's your wife, you'll be faithfull to her, she to you." It was simple.

It still is.

Marriage is a simple contract. You care for, love, comfort, have sex, talk with, and help your spouse. Are the roles in the marriage different for a man and a woman? Yeah, slightly, but when you get down to the nitty gritty basics, you are left with the most simple rule there is: Men - Treat your wife as Christ treats the church. Women - be a helpmate for you husband.

See now those aren't to hard are they?

Excuses, Excuses...

Top Ten Reasons Young Men Don't Marry

1. Easily available sex
2. Cohabitation
3. Scared of divorce and financial risks associated with it
4. Don't want children yet
5. Belief marriage requires too many changes/compromises
6. Waiting for the "perfect" soulmate
7. Few social pressures to marry
8. Reluctant to marry a woman with children
9. Want a house prior to marriage
10. Want to "enjoy" single life as long as they can.

Source: National Marriage Project of Rutgers University

Easily availble sex Cohabitation Scared of divorce and financial risks associated with it Don't want children yet Belief marriage requires too many changes/compromises Waiting for the "perfect" soulmate Few social pressures to marry Reluctant to marry a woman with children Want a house prior to marriage Want to "enjoy" single life as long as they can.

Kind of sad is it not? Marriage the perfect union delivered by God to mankind, and it has been sullied and tarnished and ultimately ignored by His creation. The question that truly needs answering though, is whose fault is this? Is it our parents? Ours? Men in general? Women in general? Society? Whose? Psychiatrist Frank Pittman says of men "they just don't realize what is in it for them. We have not done a good job of selling marriage to men. They don't know all the good things that will change their lives. Married men are healthier than single men, wealthier, they live longer and happier lives, they have more sex. They have somebody who knows them and tolerates them anyway." While Dr. Pittman doesn't answer the question of whose fault it is, he does hit the problem very close to the proverbial head. We do not teach our children that marriage is THE ultimate social union between man and woman, and that it is designed for ONE man and ONE woman to be together always. You can tell that a proper marriage is from God, look at all the benefits from living a Godly marriage as opposed to being divorced or single. Whenever God ordains something for mankind he always adds benefits to it, making it better for us to do as He wants. The question then becomes, why don't we want what's in our best interests?

Is it because we're so uninterested in what God wants for us?