So, according to OSC, marriage is defined as a relationship that can directly produce children?I reread Card's article and tried to distill his points from it. I got this list:
- Judiciary is redefining "marriage," and that's not its job.
- It's a slippery slope leading to "anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had [...] is [considered] mentally ill."
- There will be devastating unintended effects.
- Homosexuals have the right to marry (the opposite sex).
- Parents model roles for children. Kids need them for confidence.
- Lives of children without one parent are "deformed." They're "lost" children.
- The prevalence of divorce in society makes children fearful.
- Stable marriages make society stable too.
- Stable marriages make civilized children who perpetuate civilization.
- Homosexual marriage isn't marriage because it doesn't create/raise children in a way beneficial to civilization.
- More kids will choose to be homosexuals. OSC states explicitly that homosexuality is not something people are born with.
- As culture becomes hostile to parents, parents will stop supporting the culture, and it will die.
- Homosexual marriage leads to...
- Kids who can't marry/parent leads to...
- Divorce leads to...
- Social/civil decay leads to...
- Chaos and madness.
So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.I think it's possible that gay marriage will have unintended consequences, though I highly doubt they will be as dire as the fall of civilization. There are things Card says that I agree with, but a lot that I don't. I think that the article, once I tried to understand it, has more of a point than I thought. What I mean is, I finally get a sense of why some people think that gay marriage will lead to the ruin of America, even if I disagree. I'll save the details of that for future posts.
Ultimately, what really irritates me about the article is the disrespect it has for its opposition. Here's a sample:
Parents in a stable marriage are much better than schools at civilizing children. You have to be a fanatical ideologue not to recognize this as an obvious truth -- in other words, you have to dumb down or radically twist the definition of "civilizing children" in order to claim that parents are not, on the whole, better at it.(Emphasis added.)
I think I would have understood Card's points a lot better if I weren't recoiling from the vitriol every few paragraphs.
So, Lee, to answer your question, yes, I think his definition of marriage is one that's tied directly to children, but it's not so much a matter of bearing children as it's a matter of raising children. He thinks that homosexual couples cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples, so they're not really marriages.