Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy
An anonymous reader writes "A controversy has been brewing in the comic community for the past month. Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game and its many sequels, was tapped to write a story for the new Adventures of Superman comic. The controversy arose because Card has become an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, going so far as to say giving it legal recognition could mark 'the end of democracy in America,' and suggesting 'traditional' married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Many fans of the series objected, and some retailers decided they wouldn't stock the issue Card's story appears in. Now, the illustrator for Card's story, Chris Sprouse, has walked away from the project, saying he wasn't comfortable with the media surrounding the story. Because of that, Card's story is being replaced in the Adventures of Superman anthology. 'The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an "out" to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.' Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this. I enjoyed Ender's Game as a kid, and it tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things. On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction, and it's unlikely DC would let him put those views into a Superman comic even if he wanted to. It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets? What do you think, Slashdot?"
Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful. After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction,
Well, I can think of four or five times this has come up on Slashdot. Here's one and another. And from that comment by MozeeToby:
It isn't so much about 'preachy-ness' as it is about 'propaganda-ness'. In the Shadow series, for instance, we have the homosexual character of Anton. He is not in any way evil, Card doesn't ask us to fear or hate him as you might expect from a right wing writer.
Instead (and arguably worse), when we are first introduced to Anton we are asked to pity him. He is given a ludicrously strong cognitive dissonance to ham handedly symbolize the dissonance that Card assumes the man must have because of his lifestyle. He is utterly lonely and unhappy, and it is heavily implied that he has considered suicide as the only option to end his suffering.
Later in the story, Anton has *gasp* married. No, not to a man, but to a woman. In fact he is going to be a father. He is happy, talkative, and engaging. He mentions in passing that his homosexual tendancies have made his marriage harder but that with work they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.
In my opinion, this is a more disgusting attack on gay rights than any violent diatrabe could ever be.
That probably bears repeating to address your "keeps it out of his fiction" comment.
Frankly, I've given up on Card. I've been chided about this very issue before on Slashdot (several times actually) but I stand by my opinion: You're free to say or believe in anything you want. But if you're an actor, author, musician, developer, athlete or any profession that tries to use their own popularity to further a belief or statement that I find reprehensible, I will actively and vocally make it known that I will no longer patronize you with funds or admiration.
I wish him the best of luck as one human being to another but I will not spend one more cent to him if he's going to use his position as an author to vocally oppose two people of the same sex who are in love with each other. If you think I'm wrong in doing this, then ask yourself this simple question: Would he have such a large podium if he wasn't a renowned author? The answer is: No, he would just be another raving lunatic. So I'm no longer giving him the reverence or publicity that a world renowned author should have.
Boggles my goddamned mind that he could write wonderful novels decrying xenocide and turn around and say such crap. Once again the power of religion blasts the doors right off of any sensible logic.
My work here is dung.
The '80s called, they want their one-hit-wonder bowling-ball-headed Mormon idiot back.
Superman has options...
I'm a Christian, but the US is in no way a Christain nation. For what it;s worth, I have no trouble with gays except for the "ick" factor; what you do is none of my business. Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
I wouldn't be aghast if Richard Dawkins penned it, why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy? He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Free Martian Whores!
I always applauded him for being able to keep his personal brand of crazy out of it novels - it surprised me to learn how batshit insane he was, his novels always struck me as supremely rational. I did feel conflicted - on one hand, I didn't want to give monetary support to someone with such disgusting ideas, but on the other hand, I *did* want to support someone who wrote such beautiful stories.
Then I read his Empire - guess he was just saving up all his crazy for that book. I haven't read its sequel; I hear it's even worse. I haven't bought anything from him since then. I don't feel conflicted anymore.
'nuff said.
But every artist's marketability is, to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon his or her popularity. The consumers of his product have every right to express their displeasure by boycotting his work or any collective work to which he contributes.
I liked Ender's Game and it's sequels. He addressed infidelity and all kinds of political angles. As for voting with my wallet, It's not really my business what he thinks. I'll vote with my actual vote in national elections. As long as his books are good, I'll keep reading them. As narrow minded as I feel his thoughts may be, I support the U.S. Constitution, and thus his right to speak his mind. that said, I also feel he's wrong, as per the Constitution, all should be equal, regardless of sexual orientation. The day his books turn into his own personal propaganda machine is the day I cease to read his material.
You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you...
"Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction", says the submitter. Obviously, said submitter has never read Card's "Homecoming" saga. Oh, look, a guy who happens to be gay manages to put aside his distaste for heterosexual sex to promulgate the species. (It's been a long time since I read the books, so I may be misremembering the exact detail. Handwave, handwave.)
The rule of thumb, where Card's writing is concerned, is to take the first two or three books in the series, and stop. Beyond that point, they invariably devolve into thinly veiled Mormon preaching.
I stopped buying his books when he started being an out-and-out bigot; it doesn't affect me, but it does affect my brother (who came out of the closet a few years ago), and I flat out refuse to support anybody who is that intolerant. In exactly the same way, I would refuse to buy any comic where the story was written by Card.
A little off topic, but in the vein of card's character, I really enjoyed ender's game and speaker for the dead, but I was absolutely sucker punched at how fast you can fuck over your audience after reading Xenocide and Ender's Children.. The very outspoken religious dogma in Xenocide made me loose all faith in Card's cred for interesting and objective sci-fi writing... which was a shame, because I actually considered Speaker to be one of the better approaches to religion as a facet of the story without being preachy... oh well.
Bye!
If I knew a person was my enemy I would not enrich them by buying their works.
That would be stupid, particularly for trifles such as comics.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Was it wrong for people to boycott Chick-fil-A over their disagreement with his views? How about Papa John's? Is it wrong that I refuse to contribute to Scientology, even indirectly, by knowingly doing business with their members and businesses? (For example, refusing to buy Pulp Fiction as a gift for someone even though it is what they specifically requested.)
There is nothing wrong with saying "I disagree with you and do not wish to have MY money (and tacit approval) used to further causes I disagree with".
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Democracy in America is killed by unbridled capitalism and crony politics not gay marriage.
While the summary does a great job of saying pretty much everything that needs to be said -- indeed, everything that has already been said elsewhere on the 'net -- I'd like to add one bit:
"On the fourth hand, while it's perfectly fine to vote with your wallets and campaign for your causes against his, let's agree that having an unpopular opinion doesn't mean you should for some reason lose the right to believe it, the right to speak it, the right campaign for it, or in general be locked in a cage until you can be burned at the stake."
I realize this is a touchy subject for most, and while you're perfectly within your rights to say things like, "OSC should be driven out into the wilderness and shot," I really have to worry about our society if a large number of people actually believe that.
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg Nope, Not Goatse.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
On the third hand,
Shouldn't that be "on the gripping hand"?
Card is a talented author, despite his flaws. But there is no need for us to lose his creative powers just because of his hateful thoughts and words. Simply send him to the Ministry of Love and a complete cure is extremely likely.
I love Orson Scott's books, i read them, i will read them, even if he is a mass murderer. And convicted. And put in jail. That does not change the fact that his books are soo good. Unlike you, man, i do distinguish between author' believes and the quality of his work.
I implore you all not to pull a "chik-fil-a" again. Your intolerance of his views may backfire on you and make him more profitable than he ever would have been otherwise.
Before the Internet was a big thing, I happily recommended his books to people. 'Pastwatch' is still one of my favorite books ever. Unfortunately, when I recommend him to people now, they inevitably trip over his *disgusting* hateful personal editorials. It's beyond mere political opinion--he goes on the warpath and makes it really, really personal. Some of his editorials really go over the sanity cliff too, we're talking Timecube-type stuff. It could be funny but when it's pointed at you or your friends, and he's trying to incite real political activism against you, the humor is lost.
Because of how distasteful that stuff is, I can't recommend him anymore. After all, his hate is just one click away through the search engine of your choice.
From the summary, "It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets?" These two ideas are not exclusive, or even different sides of the same coin. These are the same side of the same coin. A writer is free to believe "stupid" things, and we are free not to buy things he is associated with because we believe his views are wrong. Companies are free to disassociate with him because his views are affecting their business, and he is free to change his views. We are all also free to not do those things.
That is not PC as in Personal Computer, but Politically Correct, and its a yet-to-be-written series that maybe the author of this post could be the main protagonist of. This would article gives of so much PC-stink I have to pinch my nose. Bleh. I loved Enders Game as a kid, and I would love to read Card's take on Superman. If you would rather go sit in a corner and hulk about Card not agreeing with you on gay marriage then do so, I seriously could care less.
I fail to see the connection between the author's views, and the stories he writes. If this controversial topic isn't a topic of his works, then there is no reason to boycott them. One of the great things about this country is that we can disagree on various issues, and still conduct business normally. Just because a roofer may be homosexual, doesn't mean I won't hire him to fix the roof on my home. In the same vein, I may think that Tom Cruise is off his rocker, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie that he stars in. If I disagrees with the political views of a company's CEO, that doesn't mean I can't eat the food at those restaurants.
Of course, some issues will preclude certain products from being offered from certain retailers, but those are related to the product and not the producer. 50 Shades of Grey doesn't belong in a bookstore that caters exclusively to children, or Christians. A hot dog vendor shouldn't be setting up a stand outside a convention for vegans. The difference here is that the product targets a certain consumer, but the views of the product's producer are irrelevant.
This kind of thing happens whenever you have an opinionated celebrity with controversial views that are at odds with a lot of their fan base. What's more interesting is watching to see how people's support of free speech is tied to how well the speech lines up with their own political views. Of course there is also something to be said for artists sticking to being known for their creative works and not for their extreme political stances.
Sure, you can say whatever you want, and I don't think consumers and businesses should boycott everyone with any different political opinion. That's a good principle and it fosters a free and open society.
But there are limits. When someone starts loudly and clearly advocating the repression of minorities, that runs counter to the principles of a free and open society. Even if they don't violate any laws, consumers and businesses are not only within their rights to boycott, but their boycotts are beneficial to society as a whole.
Also, there's an annoying media bias that favors people who say ridiculous and outrageous (and frequently flat-out wrong) things. The sooner we shut them up, the sooner the media can focus their limited resources on people who aren't raving asshats, and that also benefits society as a whole.
He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).
Now, one could argue that publishers have some sort of moral obligation to publish things regardless of controversy, but that's a different argument entirely.
And Card is allowed to believe and say what he wants.
Similarly, Sprouse is allowed to refuse to work with Card. Retailers are allowed to refuse to stock Card's work. DC is allowed to refuse Card's story. And comic book buyers are allowed to refuse to buy stuff by him.
Boycotts are not an attack on your freedom - they're someone else getting to also exercise their freedom.
and people wanting to boycott a game that arguably he had peripherally worked on. I think Card's Ender series has gone on too long but that doesn't change my opinion that I would be willing to read the fiction he writes.. it's hardly that objectionable (Anton aside). His views aren't effusive throughout his writing. Not historically and I doubt in this instance.
Just another second banana
I meant "Stuff that matters."
We simply need to acknowledge that it is indeed possible for unlikable people to make likeable art. I never read Ender's Game, but I've heard it's good. Every person is free to decide for themselves if they are comfortable with consuming art, food, inventions, etc from people who's views you oppose. As long as there is no coercion, I don't see a problem, with Card expressing anti-gay views in a comic book (not that he is currently doing that). I don't see a problem with consumers boycotting his art. I don't see a problem with pro gay rights consumers buying his art. The only thing I have a problem with is anything that actually limits the rights of any people unjustly (straight or gay). Freedom to express arguments against gay rights is protected under free speech, and in my view actually helps society move forward through public discourse. If there is ever a compelling reason to oppose gay rights, I might even be convinced to oppose them, but the fact that no good reason has been presented in the free market of ideas says something about the possibility that a good actually argument exists.
Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy, but this is a good thing. The USA is not *just* a democracy. The democracy of Americans is limited by the constitution. We are not able to vote to re-establish slavery if 51% of the population supports it. The constitution is a check on democracy. Democracy is only one of the ingredients of a free society. And an excess of democracy can be a bad thing. Democracy alone is just mob rule.
I didn't realize everyone who opposed gay marriage was "stupid" and "hateful". In the 2008 election, the official Obama platform was support for civil unions for gay couples (with equal rights) but not marriage. I guess that makes the President stupid and hateful.
In the U.S., we have many legal restrictions on marriage--for example, you can't legally marry a close relative, and you can't legally marry more than one spouse. In most states, you also can't legally marry a member of the same sex. Some of these types of marriages are legal in countries outside the U.S. (many countries allow polygamy, many others allow gay marriage).
Does that make the person who argues for or against polygamy, or for against gay marriage, "stupid"? Does it make them "hateful"? Who's the bigot here?
Erh... you ARE aware that those lines sound an awful lot like what we get to hear from anti-gay and racist people? Burn them, we have to clean up the country...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Whoever thinks Card's stories aren't heavily saturated with his moral and religious views just didn't notice because they happened to agree with all the views in the one or two of his books they actually read. If you actually read some of his earlier work you may actually realize he's got pretty standard traditional Mormon beliefs. That he's opposed to gay marriage shouldn't suprise anyone actually paying attention.
Don't get me wrong, Card is one of my favorite authors and I even really liked The Worthing Saga and would recommend that everyone read it. But I caveat that with a warning; unless you are also a Mormon traditionalist like he is, you may, like, me, also find yourself afterwards often sitting alone in a room arguing with an imaginary Orson Scott Card in your head.
Unlike most people, I'm very careful how and where I spend my money. I don't spend money at big box stores that are a blight on my community. I don't spend money with online retailers that indirectly damage my local community. I don't spend money at businesses that use their profits to influence our government in ways I don't like. I don't spend money buying media from people that, like Orson Scott Card, actively want to cause harm to innocent people.
It's like voting. Sure, my one vote or my $20 not spent on a book doesn't make that much of a difference, but it's all I can do, and if many people did the same, it'd have a great impact. And, not to mention, I sleep well knowing that I do all that I can to make the world a little bit better.
I don't respond to AC's.
We've been here before. See Theodor Seuss Geisel. I liked Dr. Seuss as a child, but he kept his views mostly to himself (as I remember it) and yet, could be intensely racist. OSC has the same sort of thing going, albeit on a different topic. I'll decline to pass judgement beyond refusing to give them my money once aware of their views. Free speech isn't really free if you censor people you disagree with (but nobody is under any obligation to give you money or spend theirs to publish you).
This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
What the fuck are you talking about? Speech combating speech is not a witch hunt. The populace each deciding not to patronize an artist is not the same as a top down government action of black listing and destroying the lives -- even imprisoning or fining -- other people for their beliefs. Jesus Fucking Christ pull your head out of your ass. How'd you like that sin, you "Christian"?
Apples to Oranges?
Slashdot was supposed to be a site for nerds, not idiots.
If I felt the urge to boycott artists for their personal views I'd have maybe three MP3s to enjoy, and four five minute clips from two movies.
Why don't all of you hypersensitive little panty waists quit looking for a witch to burn and just recognize a work of art for what it is: a work of art. Evaluate it on its merits and if it itself doesn't offend you, then shut the fuck up. Talent is talent, regardless of whether or not you dislike the person blessed with it.
If any of you PC fuckers had any talent we'd be awash in PC art to enjoy. But you don't, and we don't. Get it over it.
If we do not make our opposition to such disgusting (and mind-numbingly stupid) ideas known, then how the hell will social progress ever be made?
When someone is respected for something in society their opinion carries more weight. People who have never knowingly met a gay person may be swayed by his opinion. Hate speech is repeated again and again continuing and spreading it like a cancer across society. Not only that but he is also wrong about the effects of gay marriage. We've had gay marriage in Canada for several years now and the effects have all been positive. Card is a bigoted, ignorant, self important asshole who deserves everything bad that happens to him.
Freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard. Mr. Card (and everyone else for that matter) is free to say whatever they want. You are not however, free from the repercussions that arise from that speech- nor does that mean that you have to be listened to or accepted. . If I walk around all day saying that I hate pudgy little assholes with glasses & they're abhorrent in (insert deity's name) eyes, it's quite likely that my job where my boss is a pudgy guy with glasses might find a reason to get rid of me. In this case, readers and coworkers don't like what Mr. Card tends to spout off about outside of his stories. This has affected the potential of a project which he was hired on for, even if his beliefs aren't part of the story. Speaking your mind outside of your work can most certainly affect your work. See Tom Cruise, multiple politicians, etc. who said things that were not part of the actual work they were doing, but had severe repercussions for what they said in their work environment.
Boycotting the Superman issue (which supposedly doesn't contain any author tract on gay marriage) wouldn't change Card's mind, but only tell him that people strongly disagree with him (which I'm sure he's already aware of). His claims need to be directly debunked; it sounds like he has some convoluted speculative-fiction logic that leads him to believe that legalization of gay marriage would lead to a dystopic government. I've heard parallel arguments about chaos being caused by traditional institutions being threatened, but I have a hard time not seeing it as a moral panic. Maybe people will start using critical thinking to challenge traditions based on archaic, often dubious, assumptions. If that's a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.
Some media may be convinced to stay away from homophobic authors/content, but that won't stop homophobia because prejudice is easily spread by word of mouth. Self-censorship won't change anyone's minds, the marketplace of ideas needs to do its thing.
Think of it this way, which is better?:
a) someone never hearing homophobic ideas before, then being deluged by the flawed logic of a true-believer, which they are unlikely to be able to completely debunk on the spot
or b) someone hearing point/counterpoint on every issue as they come up
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Why are some of the summary's quotes linked and others aren't? Did you run out of anchor tags? I found Card's "end of democracy in America" OpEd here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all.
In it he argues that some of the gay marriage laws have been enacted by judicial fiat and not by vote. He says that the process of enacting laws without consent will end democracy in America. He isn't arguing that granting gay marriage legal recognition will end democracy.
Here is his "overthrow the government" quote.
"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."
You know, to me Superman is a gay thing.
I still don't see how those who hold up the scientific method as being above and beyond the realm of argument still don't see homosexuality as an abberation and the minority deviation in the species it actually is. The population who are or claim to be that way is so small that they are statistical outliers. Plus, it is a dead evolutionary path. There is no reproduction scheme there. It can only biologically occur with abberant mutations that nature has seen very fit to guarantee don't get passed on. I still don't see how people consider it not deviant (varying from normal) and something sustainable. Biologically it just isn't.
A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it.
And if the same people follow whatever potential work he might have and try to kill off his ability to do any writing at all over time?
Looks like an irrational with-hunt to me (the irrationality of it is that his actual story had nothing to do with gay marriage).
I have a number of gay/lesbian friends, have even been part of some ceremonies, but I see no reason why OSC should be drummed out of writing because of what he believes. If it enters the work at all, sure then I can see a basis for complaint. It's when they attack him just for being him I have an issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some of my favorite books are written by people who I disagree with. Just because someone hold a different opinion is no reason to prevent them from expressing art. Acceptance goes both ways.
~theCzar
I am not gay, nor homophobic. About 1/2 of my friends are gay. I don't think of them as being any different to me because of their sexual preferences ... a bit like one person likes lasagne whereas another likes chicken schnitzel ... They do not define who you are.
But I am pissed off that so many people are getting their knickers in a twist. What's worse is that we blackball anyone who criticises gays, feminists, Muslims, blacks and Jews - but everyone else is ok to criticise. The number of times I have called my gay friends on being hypocrites is staggering.
Here's the deal: If someone is a prejudiced asshole, tell them - but treat all prejudiced assholes (including the feminists, Muslims, gays, Jews, etc) the SAME. Wasn't that the original idea of equity - you are judged on your merit .. An asshole is an asshole. In fact, anyone that singles themselves out as a minority is a prejudiced asshole - and just give them both barrels anyway.
If irrational, we might as well be Greek.
I think that "anonymous reader" is a hypocrite. I believe it is "stupid" and "hateful" to call someone stupid and hateful for sharing their personal belief that homosexuality is damaging to the nation.
...but don't you dare attack us. That violates our rights."
I'm sick of the heterophobia and hypocrisy that's so popular in the media these days. "If you don't believe that homosexuality is a normal thing that's absolutely wonderful for everybody then WE ATTACK YOU!
Guess what? I believe that homosexuality is flat out wrong as well. So flame on.
Jerks.
I know this is modern slashdot, so rational thought and intellectual honesty are something of a premium here, but again many of the comments here are out of bounds. They can be summed up in the following:
1: throughout history, leftist governments have killed far, far more than the right counter parts. The left has killed more gays, more Jews, more dissenters than anyone. Again, I know the modern slashdot is king of ignorant, but what exactly do you think NAZI stands for? Perhaps that ahold socialist thing escapes you. Take them, through in communist Russia, the African socialists, and a dash of China for spice, and you pretty much cover all the intolerant psychotics of history. So, can we please stop this shit about right wing hate mongers killing? Look in the mirror, the enemy is you.
2. Most people across the world are against homosexuality. Even in vaunted progressive Californua if us voted down by a large margin. People disagree with it for many reasons. None if these can be discussed within the shrill hostility that you call the slashdot environmnent. Home sexuality is accepted and cheered here because, well, a minority told you to think a certain way and you simply do. Being weak willed is nothing to be smug about.
Now, you go back to your unsupported, illogical group think now.
Ps. Firefly sucked ass, and all the nerds of slashdot seeing the movie still lead it to fail. Your boycott threat is laughable
I learned recently that the late James P. Hogan was a Holocaust denier, thought that HIV was a life style problem not a virus, wasn't in favor of the theory of evolution, and skeptical of climate change. He also had written some damn good hard science fiction and time traveling alternate history novels.
Arthur Conan Doyle turned to Cristian Spiritualism in his later life, even his friend Houdini couldn't convince Doyle that he wasn't a real magician which lead to their falling out. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have stood for that nonsense.
I would like to float the idea that Orson Scott Card is just a shill for the LDS Church when it comes to this whole gay marriage issue, that they were taking advantage of his popularity to promote this issue. The timing around the Mormon effort to pass California Prop. 8 is suspect, and that he hasn't made any anti-gay statements recently.
Now that Ender's Game the Movie is in the can, we've got Big Money Hollywood on the one side that probably want's him to keep his mouth shut and that this all blows over, and the LDS Church on the other wanting him to promote Mormon anti-gay nonsense on the other. Should be fun.
Granted that the plural of "anecdote" is not data, but aren't former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and former pastor Ted Haggard some pretty blatant examples of exactly what GP posited?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
People always get all offended when I say I'm against gay marriage. Before they even inquire as to why I feel this way, they start asking me irrelevant questions such as, "Would you deny gay people the right to love one another?" or "Would you deny them the right to visit each other in the hospital?"
Then I explain that I think those questions are irrelevant, and that I'm not just against gay marriage, I'm against marriage. Why would I support expanding marriage when I'm against marriage in the first place? This is when they roll their eyes, they laugh. It's funny to hear the hopeless womanizing bachelor be ridiculous. Kind of like how they like to listen to my sex stories. Married people get a real kick out of living vicariously through their single friends. I have to repeat myself and clarify for them to realize that I'm being serious. Yes, I'm opposed to legal marriage.
What does that mean? It means the state has no business in the affairs of marriage. Marriage is a ceremony where two people make an oath to be true to one another for the rest of their lives, and then they usually break that oath at some point. Then they take the oath with another person, and then they usually break it off, too. Third time seems to be the charm.
Married people pay less taxes than I do, although their combined incomes allow them to live better. If they have kids they pay even less. How's that make sense? I pay taxes so their little snot-nosed kids can go to school, and they get a tax break? Why isn't there a kid tax?
But I digress. Marriage should be whatever people make of it. If you can get a priest, rabbi, shaman, or witch doctor to marry you and your significant other -- of whatever sex they may be -- go for it. If you want to share your finances with your loved one then go to a lawyer and draw up a contract. If you want to legally change your name to your spouse's name, then go to court and have it changed. If Mormons want to have ten wives, let 'em. There's no law against having ten girlfriends, why should there be a law against having ten wives?
Basically, a monogamous relationship is a monogamous relationship. I consider the couple who has been together for ten years, had a child together, and share everything except the title of 'husband and wife' to be more married than the couple who have known each other a couple hours in Vegas and drunkenly got married. The only thing legal marriage does is make breaking up a pain in the ass. The only people legal marriage provides any benefit to are divorce lawyers and gold diggers.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Believing that redefining the word marriage is wrong is not stupid. Anonymous who posted this garbage is stupid.
No, Card is stupid for believing in an invisible sky man who he calls God. There is no greater stupidity in America than that.
Mormonism is not like other religions.
It is a cult.
Those who are involved have some very strange
beliefs they will not disclose to non-believers.
Mormonism should be viewed with the same sort of
skepticism that sensible people use when dealing with
Scientology.
Fear of an alleged homophobe is what, homophobaphobia? Much ado about nothing. Agree or disagree with Card's views, I for one won't let that stop me from enjoying a good story--he's written excellent stories in the past.
I can see where people are coming from who think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. I don't think that opposing gay marriage always equals hate, although I'm sure that there are people who do feel that way. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, so it bothers me when I read comments like the OP, which basically assume that because you're opposed to gay marriage that it's ok to try to ruin your career.
Imagine if people were making the same big deal about a Democrat. If anybody boycotted somebody because he publicly supported the Democratic party, and comic book deals were pulled off, and there was a big online revolt among the Republicans who buy comic books who demanded that the author should lose his contracts, then I think that people would rightly call that (a) stupid and (b) a threat to the free and open democratic process we enjoy.
I think that's a reasonable analogy, since roughly the same percentage of people voted for a democratic presidential candidate in this last cycle as voted against gay marriage statutes in the different states, so I think that by definition both platforms are pretty mainstream.
So to answer the question in the OP, no I don't think that we should organize a boycott. Better to fight ideas with better ideas than to try to hurt all of the people whose ideas you disagree with.
How do we vote with our wallets if they won't make the comic with his story?
I'd buy ten copies of it if DC would just produce it.
(I don't hate gay people. It's just disappointing that they're gay.)
First up: people who want to burn people they don't agree with.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I think its high America stopped remaking and remaking and remaking the same old superhero nonsense. Trying authoring original comic books with original characters that don't wearing Y-fronts over top of tights.
I hardly ever read comics, but damn, Death Note was great. North America superhero comics are ridiculous in comparison, especially the "darker" reboots.
Officially, Card has expressed himself. DC's customers have expressed themselves. The illustrator expressed himself as well as making a personal business decision. DC is now faced with a business decision, but their specific choice will almost guaranteeably be a safe and legal one. This is how free speech and free enterprise work.
Personally, Card is just the one name in a long string of SF authors whose political and philosophical views generate interest above and beyond their novels. Larry Niven thinks the notion of privacy is obsolete. Issac Asimov was a proudly outspoken secular humanist. Heinlein got seriously pervy as he aged. I find it fascinating to see how these authors personal views bled (or didn't bleed) into their work at different phases of their career. It does seem like Card is going the Heinlein route in that his personal views are becoming more strident and more visible in his fiction as he ages. (I read Empire... it was fun even though I did feel like there was some Fox News inspired, masturbatory logic in it). Bottom line though, this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
OSC's shit has always been full of mormon pedophilia.
When he finally gets caught sucking off a child in an airport bathroom, I'll be the first to say "I told you so"
Religious sacraments and legal rights are related to each other only in the minds of fools.
Free yourself from Big Brother - your beliefs are NOT validated by the State!
Free yourself from Big Religion - your rights are NOT controlled by a Church!
Putting your peepee in somebody's but is kind of weird.
Not really, the human butt has a very high density of nerve-endings probably top 2 or 3 in body - on par with the vagina. Unless you think those nerves are there just to feel the burn when you eat spicy food, it seems like god made butts for sex too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The real issue is, it is actually okay to have any belief you want. Bat shit crazy or not. If you want to hate gays, that's your right. If you want to hate people that hate gays, that's also your right.
You have absolutely no right to burn or in any other way physically harm a person because of their beliefs or thoughts.
Have we really become so politically divisive in this country that we can't even separate an artist's fictional works from their personal political opinions? Are we going to start boycotting movies because some of the cast or crew might be Republicans? Or Christians? Where do we draw the line? Whatever happened to just accepting that some people aren't going to agree with us politically, but still being able to work with them and appreciate their work for what it is?
Yes, I realize these are all private entities expressing their individual rights, so I'm not going to pretend like anything is being censored or anything ridiculous like that, but it is creating an extremely negative political climate in which dissent is being suppressed instead of people just accepting each others' opinions for what they are and moving on with their lives.
...with idiotic opinions, I'd have no music/film/tv/book collection. Hey, I think Billy Bragg and Joe Strummer are great to listen to - but thank heck they don;t have any real power.
Same goes for right wingers with idiotic opinions.
Enjoy the good you find in things, and don't obsess about the crap.
-"DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely"
So what's the controversy with the story? Is Card finally going to end Clark Kent and Jimmy Olson's civil union? Is he going to have Lex Luthor marry Superman as a political maneuver so when he gets elected as president Superman will be in the white house even though he can't legally hold office since he was born on krypton? Which pisses of the rest of the world creating WWIII and complete annihilation of the entire planet leaving only Superman floating alone in space with a kryptonite butt plug in his ass jerking it to a picture of Bruce Wayne? What is so controversial with his story other than it is being written by Card who has criticized gay marriage? I'm more afraid of people no longer speaking their minds because of fear of backlash than of some homophobe writing another shitty Superman story.
and people have the right to not work with him because of it.
Not the first time, nor will it be the last time that people stopped working on something because they didn't like the other people involved.
Be seeing you...
While browsing and posting on this story, I'm listening to Jimi Hendrix, Astro Man, which has the lyrics:
Heard im Flying Higher Than
That Old Faggot Super man
Ever could
Be seeing you...
Well at least you believe in God. Most slashdot folks don't know anything about religion or sex.
There are consequences for being an asshole. Card's opponents enjoy the same right to free speech that Card does and exercised those rights for calling for him to be pulled for the project. Ultimately, his publisher decided it didn't want to be associated with his asshole beliefs. Nothing controversial about that.
and Hollywood is full of crazy nut jobs with a lot of weird beliefs. I also disagree with some of Stephen Kings views, and he's in my top two favorite living/publishing authors and I keep buying his books.
I'm okay with what's happening here, because it's done by the public without government intervention, I just think the public is being a bit silly. If the government were in the middle of it I would be pissed off.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
There is a simple separation between art and the artist.
If I were reviewing one of his novels, I wouldn't pay the least attention to his toxic views on homosexual marriage, unless it's there in the book. I would be happy to write: This is a fabulous book written by a mid-grade asshole. Your call. I'm not advocating that anyone else boycott his lame ass on my behalf. I have myself borrowed two of Card's books from the library because I respect his contributions to the genre.
On my own account, I'm sure as hell not forking over so much as loose change from under the sofa cushion to purchase anything the man has written. His views on gay marriage are toxic squared. Now if I were the artist (and this is a prospect I'm seriously considering in a mid-life fit of career suicide) I have no problem with gay marriage bigots boycotting financial support of my endeavors. (I'm generally opposed to winner-take-all market dynamics in the first place. If some moral market Balkanization would slow the Amazon borgship down, I'm all for it.)
Seriously, what's toxic about Card is failing to distinguish marriage as a social institution from marriage as a deeply personal institution: a commitment by two people to stand by each other. I don't give a damn if the later is redefined as civil union, so long as it entitles those who enter into it to all the traditional secular spousal benefits: insurance, primary beneficiary, power of attorney, etc.
If Card had an honest bone in his body, he'd document his views on the entitlements of civil union. Tell us, do we still need a revolution if the government endorses civil union as the secular equivalent of metaphysically sanctioned procreative marriage?
No, he just grabs onto marriage in its guise as a social institution as if there's no other reasonable claim.
He also conveniently assumes there's no such thing as a heterosexual person who wouldn't have been happier in a gay relationship except for some adverse childhood influence. No wonder all the identity regret flows in a single direction, when the countervailing direction is defined as zero by aggressive logical neglect. I have heard of people leaving straight relationships for the other side, but not yet have I heard a story where the heterosexual phase was attributed to sexual abuse (as opposed to moral abuse). With the moral abuse so pervasive, and far easier to talk about—among the people who aren't actively advocating toxic views—it's hardly surprising the "deflected into normalcy by sexual abuse" category is rarely run up the flag pole.
Apparently he never got the memo on secular democracy. He's living in a country alongside a lot of people who actively reject metaphysical first claim, and far more who passively distance themselves from the bullshit, without bestowing upon themselves any inconvenient social labels.
America is constitutionally a secular democracy. Religion in America is an aggressively individual freedom. A clarifying essay by Card on the errors of the founding fathers would also be welcome. Why doesn't he just admit he believes he's actively insurgent against the original framing of American democracy? That would double my respect for his views, right there.
Really, what need did he have to take up the subject in the first place? How was it his issue? Because when you're religious, it's all your business? How sick is that?
Nothing particularly wrong with him being a massive prick, just like there's nothing wrong with people calling him out on it so he betters himself as a human being.
Sometimes, it's not the rest of the world who are wrong. I'm sure Orson will figure it out eventually. And even if he doesn't, all he has to do is hop onto talk radio and he's set for life.
Why do people care what any celebrity or artist thinks about anything in their spare time?
You don't go down the street and ask people if they're going to vote for or against gay marriage or go to church on Sunday or if they're for abortion or not before having a block party, so why give so much attention to anyone else's beliefs when it has nothing to do with their product?
In other words, unless the story he wrote for Superman contained homophobia, what does it matter how the author feels about the subject?
Statistically I have to accept that almost every person I meet will disagree with me on something I have an opinion on and the only mature response is to not let it bother me. When possible, I have dialog with anyone that I disagree with (like those who want to avoid publishing something from O.S.C. for a reason other than his ability to write) but I don't avoid them or their product if its good.
The only result from this type of response is that people who have perfectly valid opinions of their own are muzzled and censored by the court of public opinion. I know many would disagree, but I'd prefer a nation of continual discourse on hot topics than silent resentment by those whose opinions fall out of favour.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Why should the deviant lifestyle and values of a small group within society (homosexual individuals) be forced on the greater whole? A subset of this group is very "in your face" with their agenda. Why can't they just do their own thing and let everyone else be? This group already has the same rights everyone else does plus some special ones.
Only yesterday I was reading about a porn star (legal) refused entry into a 'Muslim' nation (Indonesia I think) to do some non-porn related work. How does this differ from the gay lobby preventing Card's Superman story from being used?
OSC is a tool, but at least he is man enough to let us all know what his opinions are. He is open and he is honest. He is more than smart enough to have been devious and dishonest. Would that be better?
There is no doubt the gay lobby is now being used as a very disturbing weapon. Tony Blair famously converted to Catholicism. His purpose became clearer with time, and now we see him rallying the powerful gay lobbies within the heart of the Church itself in order to get Blair's man elected as Pope. The Catholic Church is being co-opted as part of the support mechanism for the rolling program of wars intended to create the circumstances for a global conflict.
Throughout history, homosexuality has been tolerated by most societies, when practiced discretely and privately between consenting adults. Even when societies arose that encouraged homosexual behaviour under certain circumstances, or at certain ages, those societies NEVER confused homosexual activity and relationships with the societal purpose of the ordinary nuclear family.
The gay lobby is a political movement that has NOTHING to do with Human Rights or fairness in society. Its current strength is driven by the political clout gay men and couples exercise in political parties and governments of the West. For instance, if the USA gets to holocaust Iran, activities by gay politicians will play a greater part in this than that by straight politicians. As gay politicians become the key power-players at the top, they are able to force massive societal changes, promoting by a never ending stream of propaganda in the mass media.
Why should one adult man be paid more at work simply because he is living with another adult man? Only a complete idiot would accept a comparison with the system that was created to help families. Sadly, after 15+ years of non-stop propaganda, 90%+ of you are PROUD to be such an idiot.
Gays should not be persecuted. People should be entitled to will their money to whomsoever they want, and be visited in hospital by friends as well as family. If appropriate, people should be legally able to enter into partnerships (NOT marriage) with whomsoever they wish, for reasons of sex or friendship or companionship or security or whatever.
The people promoting homosexual 'marriage' do so to set up the circumstances for genocidal warfare against Muslim nations, to be then followed by war against Russia and China. Curiously, OSC, being a fascist, drools over the prospect of exterminating Muslims, but doesn't like this particular path to holocaust. Looking at the history of Nazi Germany, we see the same phenomenon, where Hitler was proud to have an extremely powerful gay mafia at the top of the Nazi party, but encouraged most lower ranked Nazis to despise gays.
It is depraved war criminals like Tony Blair and Obama that are the most vocal supporters of extreme and disruptive gay 'rights'. Ordinary gay citizens should ask themselves why they should wish to be associated with such violent mass-murdering individuals. They should also ask themselves why so many of their 'leaders' proudly associated with child-sex advocacy groups in the 1970s and 1980s.
Human sexuality should not be the business of the state, but nor should we expect the state to 'reward' our sexuality either. The family (that concept designed to create and nurture the next generation) should be valued as a societal construct, and not turned into a 'political football' by powerful gay lobby groups or others. As for ordinary gay citizens, well all that happens when you allow monsters to represent you is that you create the circumstances for a massive backlash. Sure, YOU may have a good time at the expense of others when your company is forced to pay you more or whatever, but the backlash that always happens will br
For some reason, the whole "this person" or "that person" is homophobic is starting to sound like in the 50's when it was "that person is a commie".
People are getting attacked for believing (or are even assumed to believe) something others don't believe in. The side that's screaming the loudest then gets to blacklist those folks and keep them from working. Sheesh.
As a white-ish american male, I'm told I have to accept constant assaults on my religion, that a jar of urine with a crucifix in it is indeed art, that I have to treat lifestyles I do not agree with as acceptable by society, that I should accept every view no matter how absurd has some form of merit and thus tolerate it, that sexuality is both something one is born with and a also a choice depending on the person, regardless of the genitalia they were born with.
Yet let a person stand for their principals, that openly speak out of their beliefs, fiscal or social, that go against the wave of "social justices", and they shall be shouted down, ridiculed, and driven from any endeavor by a foaming mob.
Card is a renowned story teller. To have his story killed off because of his personal beliefs is a testament to what is wrong with any society.
It's the same as labeling a heretic of Galileo or Copernicus and dismissing their works simply because their points of view differ from the pervading mob consciousness.
It's the use of political correctness to enforce censorship of unpleasant view points by permanent "victim classes".
A sad thing indeed.
>"Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy"
Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make that person a "homophobe". Some people against gay marriage have absolutely nothing against gay people or gay couples. And some even support legal gay coupling, with the same rights as marriage, just not called "marriage".
Now, Orson Scott Card might well indeed be a homophobe, but I keep seeing articles that automatically equate non support of gay marriage as homophobia, which is it not.
Why do people (geeks in particular perhaps) get so hung up on having to either agree with EVERYTHING or NOTHING someone says and believes? Do you like the Cthulhu mythos? Well, Lovecraft was an unrepentant racist. He still wrote some great fiction though! I love Tom Cruise movies. But, he's an unrepentant Scientologist. He's still a fine actor though! You don't have to reject every word someone has ever said just because you disagree with them about one thing. You absolutely should let that knowledge inform your thoughts. And you absolutely should not feel any qualms about participating in a boycott. But you don't boycott Card's works because they're BAD. In fact, the fact that he's a good author makes your boycott even more compelling, since you're probably missing out on a great story--you're cause some harm to yourself--in order to call attention to a cause that's more important to you.
Here's what you should think: Ender's Game is still a good book. Card is still a homophobic asshole. A better question is, what are you going to do about it?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Its funnier if you say this about other people groups, like paedophiles.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Us or them.
Not that I agree with the reasoning, but that's the prevailing model of public discourse in the United States today.
You don't have an intelligent debate about something by saying "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to boycott you." Now, if you uncomfortable buying his books that understandable, but what are you trying to accomplish by organizing a boycott? Do you want him to pretend to not believe what he's been saying in order to earn your $$$? Do you want publishers not to publish his works simply because you fine some of his views disagreeable? All you would be doing is silencing dissent, which accomplishes nothing in the long run.
Except there is a difference between "I, personally, disagree with your bigoted hate speech and choose to spend my money with artists that support gender/race/ethnic equality" and "I think what you are doing is morally/ethically wrong and choose to support initiatives that deny you equal rights and opportunities." That's especially true when the latter is couched in rhetoric designed to dehumanize a specific segment of the population.
I thought you were replying to my post instead of Tailhook's message. Carry on, nothing to see here.
If you tell a newspaper that "homosexuality is a sin" and you do not state to refrain from printing it then you are either knowingly or unknowingly using your popularity to further that message. Either way you have to know the repercussions of your statements. If your friend asked you what you thought of it and you said, "it's my opinion that homosexuality is morally wrong" and had a little debate over it or didn't and it ended there then no one could accuse you of using your popularity to further this message. Unfortunately Card has written newsletters and made this a very public statement by himself. And as it grows, he's going to find out that fewer and fewer people are going to want to do business with him because consumers actually are voting with their feet on this issue! Just look at Chik-fil-a.
"But every artist's marketability..."
Mod parent up...This really *is* the only thing worthy of discussion on the OSC topic. We virtually all agree that this is a freedom of speech/religion issue. Most discussions here are actually debating *how* OSC is biased...some say he has shown he can sparate his radicalism from his work but admit some of his work is egregious, others present evidence that all his work is ethically tainted.
The meat of this discussion is a discussion about *publishing* and what a potential market for a guy like OSC's work would handle.
The fact that the illustrator of the project was bugged out by the bad press enough to ditch a paying gig (work is hard to come by for illustrators)...that says alot about the marketability and general attitude towards OSC in the industry.
IMHO, if OSC had played his um...cards right, maybe made a few statements as gestures to fans, this would be a non-issue. From reading responses here (which is for better or worse OSC's target market) on /. it seems people just want a good story. As long as it doesn't infect the story, it seems most don't care what the personal beliefs of the writer are.
OSC seems to be high off the smell of his own farts...it's a common problem for people who've had success like him.
1) Though you strongly agree or not, saying he is crazy is premature. Until there is a historical example (ie not aware of any example of a thriving society built upon the inclusion of same sex "marriages"), your arguments are conjecture.
2) If someone believes my actions are detrimental to myself or the community and doesn't speak up, he is liable. Wether I listen/agree or not is my responsibility. If I disregard his warning, I wouldn't consider his actions as hateful. It is simple a differing opinion.
That is a profound piece of prose, and you didn't even mean it that way.
You do realize that political correctness WAS labeling a heretic of Galileo or Copernicus and dismissing their works simply because their points of view differ from the pervading mob consciousness. That Rosa Parks was a troublemaker and an uppity nigger by the mob consciousness of the time. That witches were the cause of all ills in the puritan north in our past.
All of these things you revile and feel offended by are simply an alternate reality. You happen to be in a dwindling - but still plurally superior - market segment, and there will be a time when we have to "put up" with all the sillyness that the white male Christians seem to spew. And we'll have to be politically correct and call them Christians instead of Jesus-nutcakes, or Cross Dorks, just as you are currently chided for calling Muslims towel-heads, and Africans Porch monkeys, and Jews Kikes. And we'll hate you for wanting us to respect you, even though your are - or should be - second class citizens.
It is my hope that someday everyone will learn empathy, but based on how I see people raise their children to hate and denigrate those who are different I think it will never happen.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I couldn't care less what some guy says. Why do you? He can say it, he can believe it, he can actively advertize it, he can promote it, he can form a group of people who all agree. All of that is fine. The subject matter doesn't enter into things. As long as he doesn't stop anyone from doing anything that they are legally permitted to do, you shouldn't care what he says. Quite frankly, you shouldn't even be allowed to care -- eat that crow and like it.
I think you're forgetting -- he's not proposing changing the law. He's actually supporting the current, long-standing law. The fact that the current long-standing law may be stupid means that you should be upset with your government, not with him.
And he's right that in a democracy, if you want to change the law, you get to have people vote for it and against it (for and against the change). And he's correct that odds are, in some unnamed countries, more will vote against it than for it.
So, in summary: gay marriage is currently illegal (somewhere), that somewhere is a democracy, the majority of its voters don't want it. Seems like democracy has won. So what's your problem?
Oh, right, democracy is retarded -- because it allows retarded people to influence policy over intelligent people. Yeah, I guess so.
So what would you like to happen with 65% vote against gay marriage in your community?
" the Left has been pro-civil-rights, while the Right has been con-civil-rights"
Is choosing which school to send your child a civil right? The left does not believe in that.
How about openly practicing your religion in the school cafeteria. Pretty open & shut civil right? Not to the left.
How about publicly saying you're against gay rights. Pretty open and shut free speech right? No to the left.
If you had better jokes, you'd be funny. As it is, you're just sad.
If this is all "free speech" is worth then "free speech" is not enough.
Politically correct intolerance is poison and cancer and creates more "bigotry", "racism", and hate than it combats. The road our civilizations are walking down leads straight back to industrialized murder.
It would be nice if politicians and pressure groups stopped expending all their energy on proving Hitler right.
People notice they're not allowed to disagree any more, they notice they don't have any non-violent choice except being forced into the superficial masquerade devoid of individual contextual opining and decisions, all combined with untenable self-censored non-existence.
If they never make the Ender's Game movie I'll not watch it.. how's that?
So Chuck All Card's Work In The Can and Walk Away!! You Are Free To Do It!!!
"That's what I did with All of Schockley's work when I learnt of his theory on race!" says Tiberius Tuber, who, if it can't be run with tubes, doesn't run it. "No transistors for me, either!" chimes in Tuber's British girlfriend Valery Valver. "To hell with these guys if they can't think politically correct! To hell with Schockley and to hell with Card, and to hell with transistors, and people who ask questions, or whatever 'queery' means!"
What in the world do you think "A Free Society" Means? Free to hold your own opinions, whatever they are? Ha! Try that one on the FBI!
On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction ...
He does a lot more than just "advocate his views". He is a director of a large anti-gay organization, with a budget of $7.5 million per year, that "has been involved in ballot measures, legislative elections, judicial elections, and issue advertising in various states".
His organization's tactics also include such delightful strategies as:
Orson has also previously advocated for, in effect, that gays should be locked up in jail.
My other UID is three digits.
If they are doing it for that reason, why not ban all works from authors, musicians, scientists, etc that had some in some moment a belief or attitude that goes against current stablishment? Even the Bible would be banned that way.
Full disclosure: I'm uncomfortable with the whole gay thing.
I don't think they just choose to be gay (for the most part). I think it's just the way they are. (My opinion.)
I don't like it, but I do not think they should be discriminated against because of it.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman by definition. (Though some are already trying to stretch the definition. Diluting definitions makes a mess of language. Language should evolve and grow, but changing the definitions is just plain wrong.)
Gay marriage should not be allowed. It is an oxymoron, and makes as much sense as "up down" or "dark light".
They should be allowed to be "coupled" or whatever other term that they choose, and have any "spousal" type benefits/rights that anyone else would have.
First things first: I don't endorse the idea of gay marriage, NOT because I hate gays but because I believe the idea and sanctity of marriage in general is all but lost on everyone. I'm not against it, or against anyone being with the person they are most happy and in love with, I just think marriage, in general is a wasted joke that needs to be re-evaluated for people today. Second: I believe people can believe express whatever they feel like, and should be able to do so freely AS LONG AS they can take the consequences for their actions. Card has never struck me as otherwise in this. It does disappoint me that DC has taken this view and decided not to publish this story - I'm sure there has to be an illustrator who doesn't care about the controversy. Third: there are very few things that creators do that dissuade me from their work - most of the time I stop watching or listening to someone, it's not because of their opinion on something I disagree with, it's because whatever they're working on sucks on a major level. One thing I find funny, however, is that most people who voice these sorts of opinions I disagree with also don't focus enough on their work, which is part of the reason why said thing sucks. I've seen a few people buck this trend, and Card is one of them (in my opinion.) Finally: This is to the idiots on both sides: SHUT THE FUCK UP! Those of you preaching from a bible have no clue how the human body or mind work, and don't understand how you can't punish gays for being what they are, any more than you can punish a Jew or black person for being what they are. Likewise, those of the most vocal Gay supporters don't realize how many people you put on the opposite side of the fence, by shoving your ideas and beliefs into the faces of those who could otherwise care less. I'm not a person who picks sides, as I find weaknesses and idiocies on both sides of an argument. The only time I do pick a side is when someone shoves their belief down my throat- and usually it pushes me away from that view they want me to support, not for it. You idiots don't need gay marriage - marriage itself needs to die. Go ahead and disagree - I can't help it if all of you want to be wrong.
I love america. We preach tolerance left and right about how everyone should tolerate everyone else. Except when it comes to things we dont want to tolerate. See you have to tolerate gay people, but straight and gay people do not tolerate people who do not like gays.
Isnt that the very definition of tolerance? To put up with something you do not like, to in essence, tolerate it? So how come we dont tolerate anti gay people? How come we dont tolerate the KKK? How come we dont tolerate people who hate muslims? Seem to me like everyone wants other people to only tolerate things they want them to. I mean people have no problem using their right to say gay marriage for example is good and should be accepted, but should someone against gay marriage also be allowed to say what they think without being censored or booed off the stage?
If we were a truly tolerant society then we would accept someone whether they be gay, straight or anti gay and this comic book would get made.
And this is why I hate, I mean hate mainstream gaming, movies and comic books. Because mainstream stuff is never willing to lead by example, they want boring, bland, indifferent and safe material to cowtail to their fanbase instead of having the balls to try new things despite pissing off some people because they are too closed minded to only think one way. Thats why hollywood blockbuster movies, marvel and dc comics, most music today and big budget video games are so damned boring and uninspired.
And I am a homophobe? Not at all. But I will never think someone is wrong for being one, I will never say someone is wrong for saying they are one and I will never tell anyone they shouldnt be allowed to think and say what they believe. Were supposed to be free from persecution, that includes people who persecute others or dislike what the majority thinks they should agree with.
Americans are all hypocrites.
Haha, I started reading "The Tales of Alvin Maker" and basically quit the first book by the middle, in disgust.
If everything OSC writes is like this, then I pity his readership.
Keep your stupid ideologies and "moral" views out of my books.
Also, the tone, the tone of his writing..
As for benchmark, I consider A. E. Van Vogt, Theodore Sturgeon and Clifford Simak to be top notch.
This guy just rubbed me all the wrong ways, is all I'm saying.
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
Why does the "anonymous" original poster hate people who disagree with his perspective, so much so that he has to behave like a religious zealot and try to rally a boycott of OSC's work? Do you want to suggest a book burning next? Do you realize the OP sounds just as hateful as what is being presented?
Just because OSC has differing views does not mean they are somehow less valuable than your views.
To think so is to lower yourself below the other person.
Not my quote, but applicable: "Humility is the ability to not think you are right, and to consider other opinions."
The Hubris of our world is increasing, and it scares me. Even if you don't agree with his perspectives, if you lower yourself to "boycotts" and astroturfing the web with hate against OSC (go look at the ridiculous vitriol on the IMDB comments), then you are as bad as the Westboro's.
Think about it.
tora
This is one thing I give the muslim fundies credit for, they treat homos appropriately.
They should all be killed until they learn their place in society. That is at the very bottom or not at all.
... on his blog.
I thought it worth bringing notice here. It's not a simple issue, as he points out:
Do you suppress Card's speech, in contravention of the principles of free speech (but not rising to a first amendment issue - we're not the government)? Isn't that what the Hollywood blacklist of the '40s and '50s was all about?
Or do you let him put his agenda forth unimpeded, with all that that implies? Even if you then come after, and disclaim said agenda?
And how much does all of this have to do with Superman, in the end?
That last question has a lot in common with one I consider about politicians all the time: Should I vote out of office the politician that is knowledgeable, effective, and politically uncorruptible, solely because I disapprove of his not-illegal private affairs?
If he's a good writer then he'll work under a pen name. Publishers will buy his work if it's good. They may not even tell the other artists involved his real name. If they were using him for a name that sell copies then he's SOL and probably all comic book reader are better for it. As a non regular comic book reader I would collect the series if there were a boycott. The fewer people that have the series the more valuable it becomes.
I personally disagree with boycotting artists because of their views. The boycott itself is not going to change his personal views. It would be the same thing a writer that came out of the closet and did gay advocacy. A boycott of either artist is lame.
You boycott to change the policy/practice of a business.
Would AC comics would be happier with a homophobic author?
If you don't boycott, you are indirectly financing an anti-gay organization. Card is a board member of an anti-gay group that actively lobbys and demonstrates against gay marriage. And given Card's past statements about just how much he is against gay marriage, you can be sure he puts his own resources towards that end. If boycotting leads to Card making less money (either by the contract being dropped, or less of a cut for Card), then he will have less money to use to spread hate. And don't get me wrong, I love Ender's Game - my wife and I bought the series a few years ago. And by doing so we unknowingly supported Card's anti-gay agenda. Maybe just a few dollars, or even a few cents of that purchase went to Card. The sad thing is, if I had known about this, and known how good Ender's Game was, I probably would have still bought the book.
First up: people who want to burn people they don't agree with.
Can't do that, because it would accelerate global warming.
(Heh, anthropogenic in two senses...)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I started out reading Ender's Game, and liking it. I read a couple more. Gradually the revulsion set in. Orson Scott Card's books are fascist paeans.
... and generally true.
We don't have to like all the views of our favorite authors. Although I'm sure he's never acted on it, Piers Anthony has a bit of a pedo thing going on, with the worst being his book Firefly. You know what? I'm just not going to read that book. I read Xanth novels to help me go to sleep at night, and I enjoy them. (Although to be honest, if he did act on his drives and started molesting children, I don't think I could stand to read his stuff anymore.)
So, Card is a homophobe. I can both criticize him for this and still enjoy his books.
What is the deal with this binary reasoning people have? Why do you have to decide that a person is totally evil because they have one view you disagree with? I think it's possible to emit both praise and criticism for the same person on different topics.
Can I get anyone to take this position: OSC is within his rights to his opinion, DC is within their rights to not print his story...
but maybe it would be a better world if DC comics didn't have the ability to prevent publication of a given story about Superman, a character created 75 years ago by a couple of guys who were paid a small flat rate for the character?
Then Card could put out whatever story he wants and we could all avoid it by ourselves, should we so choose.
Lol
To those first 3 replys to parent and troll modder;
woosh...
I don't think that it it is fair to speculate that we would "go back like a shot" if it were to suddenly become legal. Why? What would be the purpose? Honestly, some people are so interested in other people's sex lives it is really creepy. The vast majority of Mormon men with whom I've associated are married to only one woman in their whole lives. Divorce is relatively uncommon, and Mormon women tend to outlive Mormon men. I, my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather and my great, great grandfather only had one wife a piece. Having another wife would really, really complicate my life. Even now in countries where polygamy is legal, converts are not allowed to be baptized if they are in a polygamist marriage.
Honestly, what a weird presumptuous thing to say.
Traditional Family Unit is one of those fictions that needs calling out.
This guy is a Mormon. For the moment let's set aside the whole bat shit crazy foundational principles and practices of his crutch. Let's just pick the damned bible and take a look at the 'Traditional Family Unit'. That is after all, what these fundy Christians are trying to push.
Here's what the bible teaches us about marriage: http://imgur.com/N9O9W
Some of those 'units' look like fun. How many of them are the fundies avoiding talking about?
Seriously. "Tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things"?? Awww, boo hoo, that really makes me show sad face. If the guy wrote a good story that you enjoyed, enjoy the good story without going out of your way to make a big deal out of an unrelated issue.
"On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets?"
I would truly like to understand the issue here. Are we to deny Card the opportunity to sell his books because of his belief in what marriage means? Or because he is known by a wider group of people than most individuals? Does this mean that if people believe as he does they should be denied employment in general? Perhaps programmers for government projects must profess to support gay marriage before they can be awarded public funds. Isn't that what we are really talking about here be it Card or say...Chick-fil-A? You either support gay marriage or you don't deserve to earn a living? Should we perhaps ban his books in order to keep his influence from harming our children?
As a Celebrity is merely someone who is well-known, for being well-known, I am really not interested in any celebrity's views about anything, except in a few cases their view of whatever they themselves did to help make their name well-known. And it would never occur to me to spend a nickel more, or a nickel less, on anything, due to political associations. There are indeed people I tend to buy from, or will not buy from, because I have my opinions, but these would be opinions about THEM, not about whatever off-topic issue they favor or oppose.
I like Card in general and the Ender books; aside from the origin story and the first couple of times DC tried to convince me the Man of Steel might bite the dust in THAT issue, Superman is just not on my radar, illustrated or otherwise. I did kinda like the old TV show though, but hated the movies.
The issue is not about the choice of that gay people can marry or not, it is about gaining acceptance. Gay people find it offensive when people don't affirm them morally. They will yell loud until they are able to get married in every state, they will get their way, breathe a sigh of relief, and then continue to go after every organization, man, women and child who does not support their beliefs, until they say "Gays are morally right." I don't care what gay people do, I don't think that being gay defines you as a person, just as being white, or black or from another nation does not define you as a person, each individual defines themselves as a person. I do think it defines your some of your actions, and I think those actions are wrong. I do think that they should be treated fairly just like everyone else, and if that is your lifestyle, no one should hold it against you when it comes to the decisions we all make (like in buying, selling, getting a job, or paying taxes). So, go ahead, I'm waiting for the "Gay hater" label for expressing my opinion.
People can disagree about political issues and we don't have to immediately assume they hate us or some faction of the population. I don't think smoking is good for you but I don't hate smokers. I prefer Windows and Linux to Mac but I don't hate Mac or Mac users.
Rudyard Kipling was an imperialist. So he's out of fashion. Orson, you're in good company.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
I didn't realize opposing something meant you automatically hated everyone and everything associated with the thing you oppose. I suppose it should be little surprise. If you're a white guy and you try and tell Native Americans or African Americans how they can improve their lot on life, you're branded a racist.
Imagine that someone has an absolute commitment to a policy where, no matter where he gets money or how much he gets, 10% of it goes to an organization that has launched massive propaganda campaigns telling everyone that some group of people are a menace to society.
Can you imagine someone being unwilling to give him money, even if the specific task they'd be paying him for does not also endanger them?
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
That would only be comparable if the porn star was lobbying the Muslim nation's government to make porn legal, as well as giving 10% of her money to an organization whose major goals include promoting porn in Muslim nations.
In case you haven't noticed "us or them" hasn't been working out real well, it's just been moving more people into the "us" or "them" category and making compromise difficult.
Would it be alright if the publisher said "we only believe in straight marriages - you've spoken out in FAVOR of 'gay marriage'*, therefore we're not going to use you"?
*insert here any non-politically correct belief. If the publisher was secretly a white supremacist, could they reject Clayton Biggs?
Personally, I believe that in a perfect world, we'd all be allowed to choose our friends and associates freely. A company could hire - or not hire - anyone based on whatever criteria they want; likewise, customers could patronize (or not) a business equally arbitrarily.
However, that's NOT how our society works. A company cannot refuse to hire women, black people, or gays. One can't form a club and refuse to allow women in. Hell, you can't even have a simple pass/fail test for capability (ie a fire department) without special 'easy mode' parts for women. So why do we tolerate the hypocrisy? It's ok to be thought-police one way, but not the other?
-Styopa
Is it possible this post could be filled with more hate. A one sided view thale makes me want to buy another osc book. Face it not every agrees with YOUR ideals and move on. I think avoiding DC is the proper action here. If the story had superman going down on jimmy and they pulled it because of that you would be against DC. Look in the mirror a bit next time before you post this trash.
Maybe if Card is able to communicate effectively with gay people using philotic links or virus DNA, he wouldn't feel compelled to destroy them.
There's a blog article that describes the biological origin of homosexuality.
On Defending God's Reputation From Brain-Washed Idiots" (Section 7) Basically, it points out that at the time sexual reproduction began to exist, it first existed via organisms that both donated and received genetic material (hermaphrodites). The key question is this: When hermaphrodites engage in sex, are they interacting homosexually, heterosexually, or bisexually? The best answer is "homosexually", since hermaphrodites are all the same sex! Next, since there is a gene-based desire to breed with one's own kind, it logically follows that the definition of "one's own kind", for hermaphrodites, is also about being "homosexual". Later there was a functional split in sexual roles. But the genetic tendencies were already in place, to interact sexually with one's own kind! Obviously the tendency has been modified somewhat, else heterosexuality would have been a failed experiment. But it is equally obviously not entirely gone from the population. And so the opinions of Religion are simply worthless, on this topic.
Why should one adult man be paid more at work simply because he is living with another adult man?
I dunno, why should he? I mean, since you just completely made that up on your own. Are you claiming that marriage somehow forces companies to pay married people more money? Or is it specifically gay-married people, something in the standard boilerplate that everyone signs without reading that says if I gay marry I get twice the salary? I mean, I certainly didn't read mine, for all I know it really could say that.
Also, judging by your entire anti-anti-Muslim rant, President George W Bush must have been so gay.
Even if you thought homosexuality was the epitome of bliss, and every gay person a saint, you'd eventually have to come to grips with the fact that no gay person came into this world except through the union of male and female.
So, if you were gay, why wouldn't you honor traditional marriage as something sacred, yet different from the relationship you have? Why would you tear down the relationship which produced the person you love?
My belief is that gays want their relationship to be accepted for what it is, not for the rest of the heterosexual community to treat them as pseudo-heterosexuals. That's what "gay marriage" is - a way of saying "we don't really accept what you do, but we'd rather avoid the conflict, because, personally, you're not worth fighting over."
Moreover, not every homosexual dies of AIDS, but enough of them do that to legitimize the gay lifestyle is to wish pain and misery on someone who is already struggling with who they are, and with temptations they are loathe to admit. If we loved them, we would help them to understand their struggle is the same struggle we all face, for as scripture say, "All have fallen short of the glory of God". Every one of us was "born that way". Not all are tempted as gays are tempted, but everyone is tempted by something. Everyone starts out separated from God, and for someone who can't even talk about their struggle, their fight for dignity and self worth must seem particularly difficult.
Well, difficult to someone who hasn't been married. I've seen marriage redefined in my lifetime from something which was sacred and permanent, to something which is little more than a formal expression that two people feel something strong for each other. It might be called love, but "love" has so many meanings as to render the expression meaningless. I've also seen the societal cost of redefining marriage - from legal divorce, to no-fault divorce, to common-law marriage, all with disastrous consequences. Nearly half of new marriages fail. This is not a problem of gay rights, but of society's fundamental (mis) understanding of marriage. It is a relationship instituted by God between a man and a woman, for as long as they live. When the societal definition of marriage is changed from this one, people suffer:
The redefinition of marriage is a serious issue for heterosexuals, because the changing notion of marriage has resulted in more mis
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Look, if Kal-El wants to fuck another Kryptonian or some other consenting superhero that can resist his hypersonic ejaculation... well I don't really care. Otherwise it's murder.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Card is right in one respect, people HATE HATE HATE traditional values, Christianity and the views of most people. This is proof positive that our society is profoundly hostile to traditional religious people and engages in overtly anti-Christian behavior at the drop of a hat.
Imagine say Card being a Muslim writer, expressing traditional Islamic teachings (which demand killing for gays -- the Koran says so and Muslims kill people for even touching the Koran wrong). Nothing would happen to him in that case.
I DO KNOW that in places where gay marriage has been legal for almost 20 years (Toronto, the Netherlands) it has been a disaster in secular policy terms.
There are not that many gays, about 3-4% of society. Gays just are not that numerous ... duh they don't reproduce much. Among gays where gay marriage has been legal, about 10% get married. Gays are not that interested in marriage, 90% of them act not much different than they always have. Which is wildly promiscous and anti-marriage.
So for the benefit of ... 0.3% of the population or so, we'll rewrite marriage. Allow gays to make it as gay and fabulous as Broadway musicals and Judy Garland revivals. This will make marriage, already as unattractive to most guys as being locked in a cage with angry scorpions, even more repulsive. Marriage rates are declining, and the years married metric of men and women is declining (if people marry, they marry very late). Black illegitimacy is over 70% nationwide approaching 80%, over 90% in the urban core/inner city.
Say what you want about Mormons, at least they manage to have early marriages and stable families where resources of TWO parents are directed to kids. From a public policy perspective you're putting that at risk to benefit ... not even half a percentage point of people.
As a straight White guy I'm told I have to metaphorically get on the back of the bus, and stand only. So that pretty much everyone else can sit in front, in hiring, civil rights (Eric Holder says I don't have any and cannot have any because I am a White guy), educational preferences, government treatment, and pretty much everything else. I don't like it very much but I'm willing to tolerate some of it to buy social peace.
Its time for gays to take one for the team. To shut the hell up, take civil partnerships, and get treated like a Straight White guy without money or connections. After all, 90% of them don't want to get married anyway. And gays are a tiny group.
Bottom line if aliens from Dimension X abducted every gay and lesbian on the planet, apart from Broadway shows, Ice Dancing, stupid fashion, and fabulous reality shows on cable TV, no one would notice or care and the impact on society would not even be a rounding error. The number of Mormons in the US vastly outnumber gays. This is just more anti-Christian bigotry by gays, and those eager to appear "cool" to the point they're calling for witch burning.
It is important to not confuse right with obligation. A right does not have to be exercised, and not exercising the right would not be illegal. If you suppose that marrying the opposite sex is a right, not marrying the opposite sex, including not marrying, would not be illegal. Same sex marriage would only be illegal if marrying the opposite sex is now an obligation. In that case, abstinence from marriage would become illegal as well.
If marrying the opposite sex is not an obligation, then the right itself is rather weak. Furthermore, marriage enters two people into a contract, and the breach of the contract (i.e. divorce) carries penalties (e.g. alimony). For that reason, more and more people choose to not exercise that right but instead choose cohabitation.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the spirit of the current law actually discourages opposite-sex marriage by enforcing all the legal obligations it entails, but grants same-sex marriage legal relief. I don't understand why homosexual couples rather want the law to become unfavorable to them by legalizing same-sex marriage.
I once had a signature.
this gay-rights story. Actually in most countries in the world, gays are allowed to marry - and like everybody else they must marry someone of the opposite sex (sorry I don't buy the "gender" word). So, gays are NOT discriminated, they're treated as everybody else.
Gay-marriage opens for insemination for lesbians and surrogate mothers - because not allowing that is discrimination against the new "gay families". But do you think it's right for the children to never know who is their father alt. mother? Do yu think it's right that some adult decide to order and pay for a child knowing he will lack some part of his/her history? Is it right the kid's gonna lack his father's/mother's love?
You act as though the democracy line is an 'extreme' position on homosexuality. It is not.
In several states, there has been a democratic vote against gay marriage, but a judicial or similar non-democratic decision which overrode this. I don't give a rat's ass about this issue, but the idea of judges claiming century+ old documents somehow protect gay marriage is beyond disturbing to me.
Card is a Mormon. He is expressing the views to be expected from a Mormon. His 'problematic' views go far beyond gay marriage. This is to be expected. Learn to tolerate it. If you can't handle Mormon authors, you are also a bigot (at least card isn't promoting silencing 'pro-gay' authors).
The attempt to equate opposition to gay-marriage to Card's more extreme anti-homosexual views, extremity in general, and even bigotry is insane.
I mildly oppose gay marriage not because it offends me, but rather because it is mildly stupid. Marriage is a societal recognition of the biological relationship which creates the next generation. It is a means of us formally defining extra rights, responsibilities (and so on) to these couplings, that are appropriate for families, and not individuals. It has nothing to do with companionship, love or similar (except insofar as they happen to result in these relationships). The idea of applying this to anything else is either foolish pragmatism (i.e. a lazy way of applying the current companionship/loving partnering related rights/responsibilities that are currently attached to marriage [defaults dying without a will), or a cynical attempt to create a wedge issue in politics (since this will offend those who treat marriage as sacred).
The correct answer from a public policy standpoint is not hard. Create two categories. In one apply all existing rights/responsibilities in marriage. In the second apply all rights/responsibilities involved in marriage that have todo with companionship/love and not the reproductive biological relationship. Then we can argue over which rights/responsibilities should apply when it is not obvious, and over what to call the categories. Or you can all keep being morons, allowing yourselves to be continually dropped over a wedge made up of a false choice, for the benefit of corrupt assholes.
This reminds me of what happened to Bill Maher in 2001. Some of his advertisers got their panties in a bunch over something he said, so they stopped paying him, and since then, he's referred to the incident as when he was "silenced."
And yet (even if you ignore Maher's great comeback on HBO) let's look at how the withdraw of commercial support for Maher's and Card's speech is impacted: worse case scenario, the ceasing of their commercial support reduces them to having a voice of the same magnitude as all us "little people."
Boo hoo! Poor OSC no longer has his voice artificially amplified, and that DC no longer delivers many thousand of CardMeme impressions! It's the end of democracy, because too many people voted with their wallets! It's chilling speech, because those listeners/customers decided to opt out of actively funding someone's speech.
Now poor OSC has to post to Slashdot to be heard, or stand on a soap box in the public square, or be the person who pays, rather than gets paid, for his speech. You know, just like nearly every single one of us. And not because anyone brought him down, but because people decided to abstain from elevating him. The poor bastard, having to compete in the same marketplace of ideas as the rest of us!! Nobody should have to endure that -- where's Voltaire to fight to the death for OSC's RIGHT to a privileged position?
This is a first amendment issue!! What part of "Congress shall make no law, allowing customer whims to abridge the business viability of media in a competitive marketplace" don't you understand?!
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have finally found an example of the "culture of dependency" that Republicans have been warning us all about. Everyone, please welcome our newest member, Orson, to "the 47%."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction"
Er. You may have missed his five book novelization of the Book of Mormon, which quite prominently features a gay character who practices abstinence (with clear authorial approval).
(I'm gay, married, and Ender's Game and Speaker of the Dead are two of my favourite books ever. Makes it a bit hard to know what to think, really. I would love to meet Scott and attempt to gently talk some sense into him...)
I for one wants to know where I can buy more of his works.
Why would a majority of people have to agree to allow same-sex marriage when 100% of those against are not being forced to change their ways if it is allowed?
Why?
Who wrote this garbage? OP should do a little bit of research before re-posting straw men.
"The controversy arose because Card has become an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, going so far as to say giving it legal recognition could mark 'the end of democracy in America,' and suggesting 'traditional' married people will eventually have to overthrow the government."
Card never really even came close to saying that giving gay marriage legal recognition could mark the end of democracy in America.
That quote came from an article he wrote back in 2008, shortly after the court in California disagreed with the law that the voters in California had passed. Gay marriage was a secondary issue. It was the fact that court was making new laws. Nobody believes that giving gay marriage recognition could mark the end of democracy in America. Least of all Card. However, letting the courts make new laws when the people have voted... that might.
Card also doesn't believe that traditional married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Whoever wrote that press release was obviously trying to make him out as more of a nut case than he really is.
Frankly, it's obviously working. Nobody here even checked up on it. Slashdot, I'm disappointed.
But to you it is the "ideologically motivated" law against holocaust denial that must be silenced, not the denial.
And can one woman have many husbands?
If not, then you're not FOR polygamy, you're FOR men being a superclass of human, women and homosexuals of either sex being sub human.
This, oddly enough, is actually encoded in the Mormon faith.
Because there's no "marriage" there when the kids have already been born.
When did the HRC lobby to get a law passed blacklisting Card? Oh, that hasn't actually happened?
Then WTF are you talkin about, Willis?
Right, because using your free speech rights and your wallet is totally the same thing as being discriminated against.
Idiot.
I think Card is preparing to enter politics and run for the Senate as a moderate candidate.
Orson Scott Card is well known for holding these opinions, and he hasn't kept them out of his fiction either.
One of his stories, I forget which, was set in a society where the men and women had strictly separate religious rites, notable because the male rites involved self-flagellation and bloodletting while the females were contemplating their mystic pools or whatever. If that isn't a shallow reflection of rigidly defined gender roles I don't know what is.
Later in the same story, there is a group that is going to be leaving the planet and starting a new civilization. Of course they all have to pair off to breed the next generation. However, one of the men is gay. He is described as previously having had unsatisfying and furtive encounters in the back alleys of the big city. Setting off on this journey will be condemning him to a loveless life, since he will be the only homosexual. But in the end he continues to hide his orientation and comes to a compromise with his assigned breeding partner. Off he goes to repopulate the planet or whatever in a weird kind of fake heterosexual coupledom where no-one will ever know the truth.
It was a vaguely entertaining read but authors always put their own view of the world into their writing - don't pretend you can keep the two separate.
Enough of the glorification of hate speech as something that is acceptable in any society. Let their be a penalty for hate speech and the preaching of discrimination.
So, using this logic, should opera companies still perform Wagner? So we start banning and boycotting artists, professionals, and anyone else who has the audacity to advocate ideas we don't like or support? I've seen this movie a few times before... go a few more steps along this road, and there are bonfires burning the books of these offensive creatures... a few more steps and you're burning the offensive creatures themselves... So are we all going to have to take oaths now, swearing our personal beliefs are in sync with the times in order to practice our professions?
There was a time when the creative minds of this country were discredited, blacklisted and even arrested because they were accused of being Communists, Radicals, Social Deviants and Homosexuals. Now the Homosexuals have their turn, and have proven they never really objected to McCarthyism, their righteous self-will knows no bounds, and they will oppress as they were oppressed.
Where is the tolerance that they strove for when they were not a mainstream religion of thought? Is this the price of tolerance: More Oppression?!
Ridiculous. This whole scandal, its hypocrisy is galling. Judge the art, not the artist. Some of our very best classics in science fiction are from people who were nonconformists in their day. In fact that goes for most authors... perhaps it is their outspoken natures that drives them to do things the rest of us can do little more than wish we did.
OSC's comments seem almost prophetic in the face of what's occurred.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Sorry if you don't agree. The moral/social fabric of our society is disintegrating before our very eyes and no one wants to take responsibility for their part in it. Instead those responsible continue to protest about how "hateful" those of us are who can actually see the forest through the trees... and the damage that is being heaped upon this once great nation and its people. I have an equal and constitutionally guaranteed right to state my beliefs. Card is no different. The "outcry" is by the very few, threatening a boycott that will have negligible effect on the comic. A society that governs by the decree of the very few, responding to the even smaller number of squeaky wheels, will never last. Such are the times we see unfolding now.
Thought Police.
Pure and simple.
I have the right to my opinion, as long as I don't take physical action in an attempt to force it on others.
But no body, political group or religious zealots have the right to tell me what to think.
In that respect Card is right, this issue is the litmus test for freedom of thought and speech in the west.
What do I think Slashdot? Grow up and quit reading comics. That's what I think
...than his terrible work. "Ender's Game" is basically one giant fascist apology, that is not only offensive on its face, but terrible written as well.
I don't like some of Carlos Santana's political views, and he actually preaches these views at his concerts. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give up listening to his great music.
Damn straightphobes! When will straight people get equal rights?!
I can't cease a multi-million dollar production because I'm straight, why should they be able to?
Just teasing... mostly.
I hate judgmental people like homophobes but just because the guy IS one doesn't mean the movie will portray that idea. Wait till the crime is committed then raise hell. Otherwise lock yourself up for murder since your capable of it even if you haven't yet.
Also GROW UP! Everyone has problems with discrimination, the reason it exists is because someone is just to damn sensitive. if you don't give a damn what people call you they wont call you that since it doesn't get a rise out of you. You don't hear people using 'geek' as a bad term anymore do you? Its a badge of pride that we rose from the garbage and are now the leaders of the generation. Its not right but neither is being a prissy ass panzy about it and ruining what MIGHT have been a great NON HOMOPHOBE movie for the rest of the planet.
Whether we agree with card or not, he's got freedom of speech. The question is whether is views would be reflected into his work. But, in the end, no matter out outlandish is views, it should not affect his work. End of democracy isn't going to start because of gay marriage, well, that's my opinion, but when we lose our freedom of speech.
I was hoping to not see the typical name-calling that is so prevalent when it comes to the gay rights issue. But here it is, people calling Card a homophobe, bigot, hater, etc. Many of you have bought into "If he's against homosexuality, then he's a bigoted homophobe" mentality that is, unfortunately, so common in the debate. So Card doesn't agree with homosexuality. I don't either. Why can't people just leave it at that? Why do so many have to spew their name-calling to get their point across?
The hive mind, which is based on socialization and not science, wants you to see the world in a Boolean measurement: what We approve of, and what We don't.
This is mind control of the oldest type, namely peer pressure and social coercion. There's no reason to pay attention to because it's unscientific and as history shows us, usually wrong.
However, a lot of people are afraid of those who don't follow the hive mind. They fear these people who are not controlled, 'civilized' and neutered by hive mind morality.
Stay free, stay independent, stay clear: avoid the hive mind.
This is the direction our society has been leaning for a couple centuries, and since it identifies itself as "good," it's hard to oppose it.
What can we say? To identify with the opposite of "good" is to by definition be "evil."
This is why that Nietzsche guy wrote books like Beyond Good and Evil and The Antichrist.
I agree. If I only read or looked at art from those I completely agree with, I would hardly ever read or look at any art at all. On top of that, I would hardly have anywhere to shop, or anything to buy. Homosexual marriage is not the only issue out there, heck to me it's a very minor issue. I care far more about continuation of the species issues, such as carbon emissions, gmo pollution, penicillin resistance and many many other issues. Both parties crusading on opposite ends of various morality issues is a great way for them to distract the public in their near complete failure to provide solutions to actual issues of substance. They can no longer even create solutions to the artificial problems they create, such as sequester. How more dysfunctional can we get while millions get worked up about teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs or whatever the issue de jour may be.
I just think this is so strange since the 1st book contained some fairly homoerotic content (I only read the 1st one). There's the kiss between Ender and Alai. There's the fighting naked in the shower scene. I figured Card was doing this intentionally for homoerotic expression. Go figure.
> Putting your peepee in somebody's but is kind of weird.
There are people who disagree with that statement. And that's fine. But I would never let someone put their peepee in my but.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Apparently, God also placed the prostrate so that it is within reach, but only by another person.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"I enjoyed Ender's Game as a kid, and it tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things."
Dear Anonymous,
Read just about anything else Card ever wrote. Nothing will taint your views of him as an author more than that. (And if anything should have frightened Superman fans it should have that - the quality of the vast majority of his writing.)
And yet Ender's Game is still a great story. It doesn't make it any worse just because most of the author's other work is tripe.
The original poster of this topic has some real issues. the comment "It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things" is such a hypocritical statement. It doesn't matter where you are, you are free to believe in something. It is in this free country that tolerance should prevail and not only allow people to believe in what they want, which is human nature, but not be ridiculed and persecuted for those beliefs. By saying someone is free to believe in stupid things you are showing your lack of tolerance, which of course is a symptom of those who profess tolerance. Lets substitute the two sides of the argument in his statement and you tell me which one is acceptable.
People are free to believe that gay marriage and gay rights is stupid.
People are free to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is stupid.
Both statements are false, as they are hypocritical. If someone is believes in something that you don't, does that necessitate stupidity. Shame on you poster for painting the argument of gay rights with a hypocritical argument and worsening this gigantic issue.
So it is ok to be outspoken about pro gay rights, but it isn't ok to be outspoken against it. So much for free speech.
People are either pro-gay, or come from a more traditional background. Not interesting, like whether you like Coke or not. What is interesting is to watch the herd turn on anyone with an unpopular view. Why do we need people to agree with us? Isn't that a bit of cognitive dissonance? Is the goal to create a society were everyone agrees?
It chills me to think that anyone would be denied economic opportunities because of their personal beliefs. Are we going to start throwing vegans under the bus because some believe that we carnivores are immoral? I hope not. If the man's personal beliefs do not affect his work, than we should receive his work product on it's own merit.
Card is a Mormon. Mormons are good people, I know many. Look at Card's books, you can see a religious theme, strongly influenced by his Mormon faith, running through out the books. He tells a good story, I like most of his works. I am surmising that his faith is behind the Superman controversy.
I enjoyed Ender's Game when I read it many years ago (didn't read the sequels). I may even get around to seeing the Ender's Game film at some point (probably on DVD). I had some vague notion of Card's religious preference, but I figured that was his business. I don't routinely read or refuse to read an author's work based on whether or not he's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. Fifty years ago, an author might have been boycotted if it became known that he supported marriage equality or gay rights. Today, it's just the opposite. Are both attitudes advocacy or censorship?
Actually, Card's beliefs are threaded all through his works if you know what to look for. Certainly the Mormon cosmology is in many of his novels - it just looks so much like Science Fiction that it doesn't raise any eyebrows.
Because Card's themes are so frequently concerned with fundamental matters of conscience, it was a deep disappointment to me when I learned how extreme and insensitive his views are. He will never be the same for me.
I do not think that Card must be universally shunned for his viewpoints. However, if DC chooses to do so, well, that's free speech, too, isn't it? I doubt if I will buy another of his novels.
Here is the newspaper he write for, should you all want to see him in action outside of his fictional works:
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/
One remark by Natalie Maines and "one of the most popular acts in the country became its most hated. Its music was banned from radio, CDs were trashed by bulldozers, and one band member's home was vandalized."
If you are in the entertainment industry (write, sing, dance, act, etc) and you make controversial remarks, be prepared to have your career negatively impacted.
So if I don't agree with the views of the author of this article and the general public didn't either. Should this article be censored? Or should the reader be let to decide if the article is good or not regardless of the views of the author. He also seems to have already made up his mind about the subject without trying to see if from OSC's point of view.
Just like how the same-sex marriage backers decided to totally destroy Chick-Fil-A over their "homophobic" veiws? oh, wait.... Maybe the best thing DC could do for business is to publish the stories and then collect the bonus bucks from the anti-boycott backlash.
Ender's Game was overrated, way overrated actually. The characters were uninteresting, the plot was uninspired, and Ender himself struck me as a Mary Sue.
Though I did find his book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy to be very well written.
Good grief people! Having an opinion on gay marriage (as an institution) is not a personal attack on an individual. It is no different than questioning polygamy (as an institution). One could hardly consider such views as "hateful" since they are not directed towards an individual, but rather a practice. If the man came out and said John Henry is a homosexual and should be beaten, then we would have a hateful statement as it is directed to an individual with harmful intent. Otherwise it is only an opinion and he is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours.
Probably the single biggest problem we have with this issue is that people are treating a sexual 'practice' as though it were a 'physical trait'. It is not. It is an activity that can be participated in or abstained from regardless of your orientation. That is not the same thing as racism which breeds hatred because of physical differences.
You could call it bigotry, and that has its own set of concerns and problems, but let us stop calling things 'hate crimes' until they actually become 'hate crimes'. I can love my a NRA card carrying uncle and still disapprove of his gun hoarding practices. We would clearly have a very heated difference of opinion on hand gun ownership, but that does not a hate crime make. Gay marriage is an issue with differing opinions, end of story.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2 Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
The stars have been around even longer.
Superman is for kids. Grow up an read something that will improve the quality of your sad lives.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
"On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction.." you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you read The Tales of Alvin Maker? That is just about the most heavy-handed Mormon bore session i've ever read. hint* DON'T READ IT. Waste of time.
If i was them i'd not release it. It's hard to justify the hateful spewings of a closed mind in any form.
If Card merely announces his stance, and his story is agnostic to that stance (i.e. he isn't pushing his agenda in his story) then people boycott his stories, don't stock his comic, cancel (or whatever you want to call it) his project because they have a different opinion then where is the hate?
Surely the hate comes from those who are blackballing him because of what he said. Either that, or the blackballing comes from fear of reprisal stemming from the belief that the intended audience would act vengefully.
Note that Card opposed gay marriage. His call was that legislating gay marriage would incite revolution. This is not an attack on gay people or even gay lifestyle. It is understanding that enacting gay marriage law when it is not supported by the voice of the people is incredibly divisive. Not between gay and non-gay but specifically between the electorate and the elected. When that happens so will revolution against the government. He did not say that people would start killing homosexuals.
If you look at the consequences of states that have enacted gay marriage laws then you see:
* A large majority were enacted against the voice of the people and have been revoked if the state constitution allowed a referendum on it.
* Where the law was enacted it criminalised religions for retaining their moral stance, penalised individuals and families who had a different opinion all the way from disciplinary action against children at school to losing jobs in the public (and in some cases private) sector.
For a country that has had freedom of religion and liberty to believe whatever they wanted - being dictated to in this matter is a new and uncomfortable thing. Sure everyone gets that criminal acts gets punished, that is how law and order work; but when belief itself can be a crime we are in "1984" (George Orwell) territory. It seems logical then, that the American people would once again fight for their liberty, for religious freedom and their beliefs.
So that he donates millions to extremely anti-gay political groups is what?
HIS OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
That is what it is.
Again, trying to prevent him from merely working is what is most odious here.
In the end we all spend money on things someone else finds immoral. Would you like protestors showing up at your workplace tomorrow demanding you be fired simply because of what you choose to support in your private life?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Marriage is a breeding/rearing contract. Gays can't breed. Therefore, gay marriage is absurd. It's also harmless, so leave the daft buggers alone.
But only if you say the right things.
This is freedom? You can keep it.
In "Ulysses," any time a character says something antisemitic, you can be sure that character is intended to be seen as an idiot. It's a bit of a jump from James Joyce's fictional characters to real people, but I think it's a fairly reliable principle: bigots make bad art. Bigotry is always imposed on you by your parents and teachers--left to yourself, you might find homosexuality pretty strange but not a moral issue--and believing uncritically whatever your elders teach you is not the way to become a great artist.
There are exceptions, of course: Leni Riefenstahl, Richard Wagner. But I think they might have been even better artists had they not been crippled by their bigotry (or perhaps, in Riefenstahl's case, her amorality).
It's funny because I have read all the Enders Game books and there were some characters that seemed pretty gay, and they weren't even the villains.
I hope you don't wonder why you cry yourself to sleep masturbating.
Imagine if everyone would simply acknowledge that homosexual relationships do nothing to propogate the species, and are therefore unnatural in the purest sense. Try to keep in mind that I said unnatural, not immoral. Morality is a judgement call.
Of couse, voicing a theoretical like that will get me persecuted.
Silly smugster, Thoughtcrime should ~never~ go unpunished.
Card is one of the best authors in the business. Sad that perceived bigotry is responded to with even greater bigotry in return.
Pro-Marriage does not equal "homophobia". Card isn't doesn't have an irrational fear of gays. He is simply pro-traditional marriage. He may even against same-sex marriage. That is still not an irrational fear of gays. *I'M* pro-traditional marriage but voted in favor of same-sex marriage in my state. I would attend a birthday party for a gay person but I wouldn't attend a marriage between two gay people.
Whomever posted with that title is obviously one of the 80% of illiterate New York high school graduates...
This is the real end of open society. When someone espouses a "unipolar" opinion, we play like he's not there? What absolute bullshit. I'll be sure not to buy a copy of DCs PC comics.
I support Orson Scott card's right to have his opinions and to include them in his art, or not, as he sees fit. I can respect that.
I support DC's right to hire whichever writers they want for their projects, and to take the position that they don't judge writers on their views. I can respect that.
And given both the rights above, I have the right to boycott Card and never gain buy anything he writes - a right which I will exercse now and in the future. I also have the right to encourage others to not buy his stuff. I woudl never try to prevent him from expressing his opinion, but I'm not required to support him, and my refusing to buy his stuff is not stifling his freedom of expression.