The problem I have is not that he has an opinion that differs from mine: it's that he cannot make any effort to understand anybody else's opinion- and cannot agree to disagree. Here's an example of this blunt incomprehension:
homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.
So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
So here's St.Rev's hypothesis: Orson Scott Card may have been molested, as a boy, by a male relative. I'll expand a bit. In my view, this would also serve to explain the severe dichotomy between the stuff that he's written which is more kid-focused (Ender's Game, f'rinstance), and the sharp unflinching cruelty of the less child-centric universe he's created since. Children, in OSC stories, are subjected to terrible occurances, which wind up with them staggering through their adult lives trying to make sense of a universe which could let such things happen to children.
Have a look at the essay: you can see a distinct pattern of references that refer, time and again, to the innocence of a child getting corrupted by (insert authority figure here). The one that stuck in my throat worst was:
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
Whether my hypothesis holds water (and I'm not convinced of my own correctness) or not, the article is an interesting read... the attempts to apply a logical mode of expression to an irrational behavior based on something other than empirical evidence are an impressive thing.
Impressive in that 'the face of the glacier overbalanced and crashed into the ocean' sort of way.