Even more from Orson Scott Card: Supported sodomy laws in 1990; gays must 'repent'
To be fair, Ender's Game scribe Orson Scott Card attached a foreword to the reprint of the following essay in which he said
…now that the [sodomy] law has changed (the [Bowers v. Hardwick] decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
However, he also said:
But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
So that being the case, let's now look back at those main points that this—who, to remind you, has vowed to overthrow a government that supports marriage equality, has printed vicious things about gays and our supposed quest for "normalcy," and who serves on the National Organization For Marriage's board—printed about gay people and out supposed need to "repent." You can then use it to help you decide whether or not you want to see his forthcoming movie:
The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible. It is for God to judge which individuals are tempted beyond their ability to bear or beyond their ability to resist. But it is the responsibility of the Church and the Saints never to lose sight of the goal of perfect obedience to laws designed for our happiness.
The average fifteen-year-old teenage boy is genetically predisposed to copulate with anything that moves. We are compassionate and forgiving of those who cannot resist this temptation, but we do not regard as adult anyone who has not overcome it; and we can only help others overcome those "genetic predispositions" by teaching them that we expect them to meet a higher standard of behavior than the one their own body teaches them. Are we somehow cruel and overdomineering when we teach young men and young women that their lives will be better and happier if they have no memory of sexual intercourse with others to deal with when they finally are married? On the contrary, we would be heartless and cruel if we did not.
The Church has plenty of room for individuals who are struggling to overcome their temptation toward homosexual behavior. But for the protection of the Saints and the good of the persons themselves, the Church has no room for those who, instead of repenting of homosexuality, wish it to become an acceptable behavior in the society of the Saints. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, preaching meekness while attempting to devour the flock.
Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
If the Church has no the authority to tell its members that they may not engage in homosexual practices, then it has no authority at all. And if we accept the argument of the hypocrites of homosexuality that their sin is not a sin, we have destroyed ourselves.
Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness.
The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness. Even hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion. But the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies. To act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the judgments of God.
FULL PIECE: The Hypocrites of Homosexuality [Nauvoo.com]
Oh, and by the way, he's also being less than truthful when he acts like he's perfectly okay with the 2003 Lawrence decision. He wrote a lengthy column blasting SCOTUS for its decision. In Card's view, only a state-by-state repeal would have been okay, making it fairly clear that he himself would prefer to live in a state that kept the ban:
The recent decision by the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-sodomy law in Texas was in direct violation of the precedent set by the Supreme Court itself twenty or so years ago when it upheld a nearly identical Georgia law.
Was there any amendment to the Constitution in the meantime? No.
There is no such thing on this earth as a human society that does not closely regulate the sexual and reproductive behavior of its members, to one degree or another. So it's not as if the Supreme Court can draw upon some claim of "natural law" or common law as the basis of its recent decision.
FULL: Cool New Rights Are Fine, but What About Democracy? [Ornery.org]
comments powered by Disqus