Comments on: Conservatives Refuse To Predict Dire Consequences For Same-Sex Marriage

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:42:41 +0000

I think the real reason that opponents of same sex marriage are so determine to reverse same sex marriage in places like California and elsewhere and do so as quickly as possible is because they know that their wild claims about the end of the world, society falling into chaos are total garbage. If a hand full of states permit same sex marriage and then the sky doesn’t fall, gods wrath is not unleashed, and society barely sees the change it will bring to light that their claims are garbage. Thus it will make it even harder to try to defend their bigotry and homophobia which is deep down what their opposition is based on because there is no secular, logical, or legitimate reason to keep gays and lesbians from marrying.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:14:03 +0000

Yes but OSC’s misunderstanding of homosexuality has always been a part of him. He likens the pedophilia in “songmaster” to bisexuality and homosexuality.

Of course, homosexuality and bisexuality have to do with relationships between sexually mature people.

By: Gabriel Arana

Gabriel Arana — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:55:58 +0000

What’s interesting is that even in the filings for the federal challenge to Prop. 8, the defense is fishing for ways to substantiate the claim that gay marriage is harmful.

Because it’s a courtroom, outright lies like “your children will be taught about homosexuality” are out of the running — it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

By: David C.

David C. — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:48:22 +0000

OSC has only recently become an anti-gay industrialist. It will be interesting to hear a recent, competent interview of him in a more open forum.

By: TonyJazz

TonyJazz — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:42:53 +0000

Don’t forget that Orson Scott Card predicted a revolution to overturn the US government as a result. …and that was one of his kinder predictions.

By: William

William — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:01:18 +0000

It’s probably very wise of them not to make specific predictions. Too many of them have done that in the past and have been left looking right screwballs when their predictions are later resuscitated and quoted. Just a couple of examples:

Back in the 1970s Tim LaHaye, in his ridiculous book “What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality” predicted that, as the result of accepting homosexuality, within another generation there could be no grandchildren.

In the 1980s Rhodes Boyson, a British right-wing Tory MP, said in a parliamentary debate on the notorious “Section 28” that the supposed “promotion” of homosexuality could mean “the end of creation as we know it”.

A few years ago, on the “PM Programme” on BBC Radio 4, Eddie Mair interviewed an American “family” campaigner (whose name I can’t remember) and asked her why she was opposed to gay marriage. The substance of the conversation went like this (I can’t claim that it’s verbatim):

Eddie Mair: Why are you against gay marriage?

“Family” Campaigner: I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Eddie Mair: So if they introduce gay marriage, what do you think will happen?

“Family” Campaigner: It’ll change the definition of marriage. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Eddie Mair: Suppose that they don’t call it marriage. Suppose that they call it something else. What do you think will happen?

“Family” Campaigner: I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Eddie, with his impeccable politeness and his lovely, soft Scottish voice, can usually provoke interviewees into enlarging on what they’ve said – and often, I suspect, into saying things that they later regret – but he couldn’t get any further with that lady. Anti-gay campaigners are bad at learning lessons, but that’s one lesson that most of them clearly have learnt.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:34:10 +0000

Good call Chris, I welcome you to point out the logical fallacies as you see them, as it makes the discussion that much more concrete and intelligent when we can identify the flawed reasoning by name.

By: timothy kincaid

timothy kincaid — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:22:29 +0000

I believe that’s a Chicago Tribune article. Chapman is on their editorial board.

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:24:12 +0000

Penguinsaur said:

They dont make predictions, everyone knows that, they take anything bad that ever happens and blame that on gay marriage. Then refuse to ever acknowledge that the ‘moral’ bible belt is full of pregnant teenagers and highschool dropouts.

Classic example of Confirmation Bias. Blame everything bad on the Gay, and give credit to G-d for everything good.

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:03:36 +0000

Penguinsaur, I think they do acknowledge that the Bible Belt is full of pregnant teenagers and dropouts, but they blame this on a permissive atmosphere that seeps in from other places. Because, let’s face it, if a teen gets pregnant and drops out of school in Alabama, it must be because Belgium recognizes same-sex marriages.