Pot, Kettle

Orson Scott Card, whose science fiction and fantasy I have enjoyed greatly, should perhaps not write about the real world. This piece of tripe reveals not only the flawed worldview of the monotheistic religions in general, but the inability of some of their apologists to reason coherently.

One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such "tolerance" would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.

Apples, oranges. Being gay is not an allegiance any more than being straight is. There's no legitimate comparison here, not even the most remote. First off, being LDS is a choice; there is no evidence that being gay is any such thing. LDS is a religion; being gay is a condition. For gay LDS to ask that their church accept them for what they are doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable, unless, of course, that church is so hidebound and stubborn that it still thinks it is wandering around somewhere in Missouri en route to the Promised Land. (I suspect that when anti-gay attitudes become a political liability, the LDS will revise their thinking. Look what happened to polygamy.)

This is the beginning of the argument. It goes downhill from there.

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.

This one is just choice. How is one genetically disposed toward something that is purely a product of the human imagination? There is no objective definition of "sin." Never was. It's all context, with the purpose of social control. Joseph Campbell pointed out that morality, like the religions on which it is based, is tailored for a particular group at a particular time, an idea also propounded by Vine Deloria, Jr. Anyone who has spent any time at all in a rational examination of religion soon comes to the same conclusion, I think. (That may be one reason Christianity and its offshoots have had such a pernicious effect on the West -- they're Middle Eastern religions, and reflect a foreign worldview.)

And I just love the last sentence there -- "laws designed for our happiness." Whose? Those who were born different than the majority and are trying to find some acceptance of what they are within the church? Doesn't really look like it, does it?

And then we leave reality behind completely:

The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.

No, you just tell them that they're not really human. Aside from his arrogant condescension, which just drips from every paragraph, Card is pulling a Benedict on us: "homosexual persons should be treated with respect and appreciation of their innate dignity, even if they are intrinsically disordered." Crap. Card is calling us hypocrites for daring to demand that we be treated like human beings and condemning his church when it refuses to do so based on its own insular worldview, and obviously won't admit the hypocrisy in his own position. (I might point out here that I am not alone in regarding being referred to as "a homosexual" deeply offensive. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, I think. It merely reinforces the fact that Card and those like him are not willing to extend us the basic courtesy of referring to us by the term we choose. I wonder if he still calls African Americans "Negroes." Not in public, I'll bet.)

And then comes the victim card:

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.

In other words, as long as you accept the idea that you're a piece of crap, you're welcome here. If you dare to display any self respect, you're a threat.

There's not really much else to say about this. Given the general lack of contact in this piece with objective reality, I guess we can be generous and just consider it Card's latest addition to the literature of the fantastic. He should, however, stick with novels. He does better with those.