Oh Orson. Sigh.

I hate knowing about author’s personal lives because it makes me harder to enjoy their books knowing they were written by a douche.

Good thing I wasn’t particularly motivated to read any of his new books anyway – although I did see Ender in Exile on the shelf recently and at least made a mental note to wiki it.

I prefer Brandon Sanderson’s “moderate Mormonism” to Orson’s somewhat more militant stance.  Even though they agree on the issue at hand, Brandon comes off looking much more rational & personable.

6 thoughts on “Oh Orson. Sigh.”

  1. Oh, so it’s his unwavering belief that makes him a douche. Was trying to figure that out. I guess we really should think of Miss California’s statements as being CONTROVERSIAL simply because her opinion differs from the now popular one. Please. Nobody’s about tolerance, just the turning of the tables.


  2. No. You should know me better than that. It’s about presentation in this case.

    The two authors both have the same opinion, indeed informed by the same source. But Orson is coming off like a douche. That’s my point, sorry if it wasn’t made clear by the links.

    Here’s a relevant quote from his Mormon times article:

    How long before married people answer the dictators thus: 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.

    The article is full of the spurious logic folks try to use when coming at this, when what it really boils down to is that the only real opposition is from a religious base. WHICH IS FINE. But don’t try to dress up a sherpa like a llama, you know?


  3. Yes, I do know you better than that. It just reminded me of what has gotten completely out of control in our liberal-to-the-point-of-retardation society. And the only opposition is hardly from a religious base. The beloved scientific community can’t argue that anything but one man and one woman can procreate and that above all, the uterus can’t be taken out of the equation – therefore I’m sure people disagree with it for “natural” reasons regardless of whether they are religious.


  4. The scientific community is hardly arguing against gay marriage…I’d say in general that’s a discussion that a ) they are not relevant to and b) I’m pretty sure they know this. Yes, individuals may speak out, but I haven’t seen anything about the community in general.

    People may disagree on that grounds, but I have to say that the only people I’ve seen bring up that reason happen to coincidentally be religious. I do agree though that there must be some non-religious folks out there for whom this would be the argument.

    That doesn’t mean it makes any sense, or is a logical one though.

    The “natural” (for procreation) argument doesn’t make any sense in this context because marriage has nothing to do with natural laws. It’s a man-made creation/term/description. Marriage is in no way required for the natural function of reproduction – yes, a pairing of male and female is required in sexed species – I’m assuming that’s related to where you’re coming from – but there’s no causal connection between man/woman marriage and man/woman reproduction.


Comments are closed.