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.
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.
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...
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
The difference is that people don't say it about OSC. It's him saying it about other people. The crazy bastard really thinks that armed revolution is an appropriate response to the legalization of gay marriage, apparently.
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.
While I certainly do agree that one should have the right to believe and speak whatever they want (discluding fire-in-theater situations, etc.), I'm not quite so convinced they should have the right to outright *campaign*, in the political sense, for it. That would imply they could *win*. I mean, I guess you could argue they could feel free to try to campaign for something that will have no chance? But that's the worry - it might. I mean, slavery was legal for a long time. Overt racism was legal for much longer. If some guy wanted to pass a law in a town saying "murder all the gays", and the town voted yes, it should still not be legal.
I do agree, though, people should not be shot merely for having disgusting views - they should be merely ridiculed. And potentially boycotted, if it gets that bad.
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.
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
If irrational, we might as well be Greek.
If you strike me down, I will only grow stronger than you can imagine.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Just like the Supreme Court ended democracy in America with its Brown v. Board of Education decision ... oh, wait.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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!
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.
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.
-"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?
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
The '80s called, they want their one-hit-wonder bowling-ball-headed Mormon idiot back.
I didn't know Mr. T was a Mormon.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
... 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.
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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
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.
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?"
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 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...)
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).
So, you would ban over 50's from getting married - there's no point, right?
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.
It's worth noting here that same-sex marriage isn't actually banned, it just isn't recognized by the governments in question and graced with potent legal protections. I think a strong angle here would be to describe how many such "unrecognized" marriages are out there.
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.
You don't "silence" laws, you silence discussions. I do not propose to silence a discussion of such a law, and i fully support your free speech rights to say that people denying Holocaust are evil fuckers that should be put into jail. It's when you actually put them into jail that you're stepping over the moral boundary and into the realm of legislating your morality onto others.
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.
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
...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.
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.
Because clearly only married people are capable of producing a baby.
Jesus, you're retarded.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Those people are not worth the oxygen they breathe.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
> 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.
"...When hermaphrodites engage in sex, are they interacting homosexually, heterosexually, or bisexually?.." your question is worthless. If there is no sex, how could they engage in sex????
Actually, it is sacred. The marriage. Not in your eyes, i assure you, but in the eyes of their kids. For them, the parents are god. Literally.
"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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Oh! There I go again! Bad Fox! Bad!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
To get the first point out of the way: a taxpayer funded organization promoting homosexuality in Milwaukee estimates that between twenty and forty percent of gay men in Milwaukee are HIV positive. And this from people arguing for the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals really do "get AIDS and die", and at much greater rates than their heterosexual counterparts. Thus, while it is a concern for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is a much more pressing concern for homosexuals.
Through marriage, I can extend to another the same gift of life given to me. Two homosexuals may be fond of each other, but their relationship will never give life to another person. The ability of male and female to reproduce, and that marriage is oriented toward reproduction, distinguish it from other loving relationships.
There are heterosexuals who, like homosexuals, use one another purely for personal pleasure. Their relationship is contingent on receiving, rather than giving. But these heterosexuals aren't asking us to consider them married; on the contrary, they often go to great lengths to assure people of the just the opposite.
Were it not for the desires of the flesh, so to speak, the relationships between homosexuals would be merely very good friendships. There's nothing wrong with loving another person. On the other hand, homosexuals take the human capacity for reproduction, and instead of using it to give life and love to others, use it for their own personal pleasure. Again, there are heterosexuals who do the same thing - but they aren't asking us to consider themselves married.
I can understand and respect the love two people have for each other. But I also recognize that to use another person as an object of sexual pleasure is to deny them the dignity due someone made in the image and likeness of God. In short, homosexuals are worth more than their partners esteem them, and are content to continue a self-deprecating relationship. They either do not understand their dignity and worth as human beings, or don't care. I can also recognize that many of them are probably very confused with respect to what a good relationship should feel like, and are intimately aware that their sex lives make them feel undignified, but don't quite understand what to do about it.
Would it be enough to regard two homosexuals as one regards the cohabitating couple? Would that be granting them enough dignity? Because I can recognize the value of loving another person independently of their sexuality. But I can also recognize the value of giving to others the gift of life, in a selfless act of sacrifice, and esteem it more highly than two people who are merely happy to be together.
Recognizing this difference is not unjust discrimination; rather, it is simply being truthful about reality. Unjust discrimination stems from pretending a an insignificant difference is significant. This is what the proponents of gay marriage are trying to argue: that the self-giving sacrifice of marriage, that the complementarity of the sexes, that the action of God in bringing two people together, is not significant. This view is particularly insulting to those of us who are married and do make significant sacrifices for marriage, which extend far beyond what a gay couple is willing to give. By the very nature of their homosexuality, gays have intentionally ordered their relationship in such a manner that they will avoid giving to others the same gift of life they received from their parents. They will avoid the struggles of raising children and facing hardships together, yet wish to be esteemed as those who do.
Now, if you don't believe in God, don't believe humans to be made in the image of God, and believe that marriage is nothing special, nothing permanent, inconsequential in the raising of children, then why would the state recognize it at all? If you want the state to affirm that a loving, committed relationship is a societal good, then wouldn't a loving, committed rela
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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).
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.