"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," - Orson Scott Card, Mormon Times.I have several questions, and would appreciate any help answering them.
1) Does he think that marriage isn't a sociological construction? I just don't know enough about Christian theology. Was the institution given to Adam and Eve by god at the beginning of time?
2) What biological imperative is he talking about? Clearly same-sex unions cannot produce children, though with the advent of various kinds of fertility options neither heterosexual marriage or intercourse are the only way to perpetuate the species.
3) What does he think about the unarguable relative stability of governments that allow same-sex unions. What is his explanation for how the vast majority of these nations not only "endure" but prosper?
4) Is what he's saying illegal? When he says "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" isn't he dangerously flirting with advocating rebellion? Any law students or lawyers reading today?
What would be the theological and practical underpinnings of his answers to these questions? Surely, he would have a response. It's worth noting that a very meaningful minority of Americans enthusiastically agree with this guy's statement, and I think it's worth exploring why that might be the case.
Posts
2 comments:
I can’t speak much to the post’s legality, although I would be interested to hear more about it. However, I can say that the current version of marriage is a relatively recent idea. People weren’t married by any sort of complicated ceremony in the ancient world. In fact, civil registration of marriages is relatively recent. For the most part, people were “married” if they lived together and had a family. The government wasn’t really involved in it until the Renaissance. Like most things, we look at how we do things now and assume that they’ve always been done that way.
As for Orson Scott Card, he’s a pretty crazy guy. I don’t even care for Ender’s Game all that much.
It’s simple. The bible says that a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife ( or some such thing ). A same sex union violates this basic biblical formula. It would be as much of an abomination as eating shellfish or wearing clothing made of more than one kind of fiber. Also, if we let same sex unions exist (under the law), what’s to stop me from marrying a palm tree or a Volkswagen. See? And, if the law doesn’t force me to settle for a woman, I (like all straight people) would abandon our god-imposed sex mandate and forget to reproduce. This, in turn, would end the world and bring about a premature rapture. This premature rapture would not allow Jesus enough time to finish doing his hair and, looking like a drowned rat, he’ll frighten the few remaining faithful into damnation. The argument wins itself.
Post a Comment