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?"

Comments

I'm not even a fan, but

[elrous0]

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.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[subanark]

I'm for gay rights. I like Card's stories. I would be fine if he wrote a story that pushed an anti-gay moral... as long as the story is good. It's always good to look at a story from the other end of the spectrum.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[bigjarom]

Agreed that he's overrated in general, but the original Ender novel is excellent. That being said, I have read about 20 of his books, and a funny thing is that Card's personal view are not at all evident in most of his books. I know he's a Mormon and everything, but the characters and situations in his stories often convey a very progressive and rational outlook on the universe.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Card's view is not an "unpopular" one; it is discriminatory. Unfortunately, it is much TOO popular.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[icebike]

The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[AK Marc]

Are you sure you read 20? I was introduced to them by a friend, and I read the first when the others had long since been out. On reading one of the sequels, I asked my friend if Card was a religious nut. He didn't know. I found it obvious from Speaker for the Dead (or one of the other sequels) that he had serious religious issues. It took me all of 2 of his books to come to that conclusion, and reading about him in more detail confirmed it. I thought it obvious, and detracted from his stories.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[war4peace]

Exactly so. Many singers I like were/are gay, and many singers I like were/are anti-gay. I don't care about their views as long as I appreciate their art, or even if I dislike their art, I still don't care :)

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[LurkerXXX]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"

No, because the government didn't stop him from publishing anything. He's still got his right to vote for whatever/whoever he wants to in elections. He's free to say whatever idiotic things he wants. He's free to submit his work to whatever publisher he wants. No part of democracy is harmed.

The market has spoken and individuals have spoken that they don't want to deal with a bigoted ass.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Obfuscant]

The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.

Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?

This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.

Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.

Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[magarity]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[sehlat]

"... separating the artist from the art" is excellent in theory, but a collapsium-plated bitch in practice.

I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy wherein the sequence went:

He: "The police should have the right to search everyone's hard drive over the net without a warrant and erase anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe."

Me: "I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"

He: "Big deal. All the royalties I've gotten from you wouldn't even take me out to dinner at my favorite restaurant."

I haven't been able to bring myself to read his stuff since, and the formerly-complete collection became pulp fiction.

As I said, separating the artist from the art sounds simple but isn't.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

I would be all for the government giving civil unions only, and not touching marriage at all, hetero or homo. If marriage is such an important religious institution, why is the government involved in it when it doesn't really need to be? Why would religious people want the government touching and managing their religious institutions? Just let the government handle things in the minimal legal sense needed, e.g. default behavior of inheritance, taxes, etc., and leave marriage and its definition to churches.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[elfprince13]

He also writes strong/heroic gay characters (have you read Songmaster, or the Homecoming series). He's not opposed to gay people/gay rights in general, but he STRONGLY believes that the traditional family unit is the foundation of civilization. I recommend you watch this video to get a better idea of where he's coming from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnhsDuj285c

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Baloroth]

another thing that would lend credence to the end of democracy would be the majority enacting laws to punish the minority.

Actually, thats almost the textbook definition of democracy (in a true democracy, the majority is always right). It's also why the US isn't a pure democracy.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[ChunderDownunder]

The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.

I get the same sense of tedium whenever Richard Dawkins appears on the TV. Whatever his qualifications as an evolutionary biologist, proselytising atheism makes him seem almost as much a religious nutjob as those he seeks to liberate.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[dwillden]

So the Hollywood Elite can use their fame to push left leaning ideas and that's fine with you, but if someone famous tries to push conservative positions? Double standard much?

Funny thing is Card is a registered Democrat, often thought somewhat out of step with the very conservative majority of his faith.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Obfuscant]

Yes, exactly that. The most effective way I can fight his message is to not fund him, so good author or not he's not getting any of my money.

The most effective way to fight any message is the basis for the first amendment. Make a better argument and show why he's wrong.

Trying to silence someone in whatever manner does not remove the message, it only drives it into hiding where it festers and becomes a rallying cry for others. Trying to remove someone's means of making a living because he doesn't agree with you on a certain issue isn't the best way to do anything.

I was horrified to know my money was connected to that effort...

It wasn't your money. It was theirs. You traded your money for their product in what you felt was a fair trade. Would you accept the quid pro quo in this matter? I.e., you say something they don't agree with and they refuse to serve you their product. "We are horrified to know that this kind of person would eat our ice cream...".

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[zieroh]

The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

You're conflating democracy with capitalism.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[noh8rz10]

must disagree. we're not talking about the textbook definition of democracy, but about the end of US as a democratic country. In order for the US system to function there needs to be basic protection of minorities on certain fundamental issues. By allowing the majority to take away the status of gay minorities, this weakens to foundation of US democracy. that road is totalitarian at the end.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Austerity Empowers]

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

It would be an awakening that what we have here in America is not exactly a democracy (nor in most of the civilized world, though mechanisms vary). If the judiciary system determines that banning gay marriage is somehow unconstitutional (at the state or federal level, and i have little hope or respect for most state "constitutions"), then you may seek to get the constitution changed. At the federal level that requires an amendment to the constitution, which means getting 2/3's of both houses to agree, then passing the vote to the voting public and getting 3/4ths of the states to pass it. Before it is democratic, it is first representative, and even when it is democratic, it is quantized by state.

All of this is what we idol worship in civics classes in school. At no point has the US been a direct democracy, and in almost no cases does "democracy" mean sampling the public and passing laws based on simple majority of opinion at random times.

Changing ANYTHING is very hard to do if people don't agree or adopt polemic positions (and honestly that is very descriptive of many pro and anti-gay marriage supporters). This should be obvious to those bitching about how their "government has failed" when we hit fiscal cliffs or sequestrations or whatever the media wants us worked up over. The judiciary system is no different, in highly contentious debates they can act arbitrarily or by reading of law, it hardly matters as a large portion of us will hate them anyway. If the majority of us do agree on something, we can get it fixed. But since we cannot agree on this issue, it really doesn't matter what they do, lots of people will be unhappy either way.

None of this makes me look for the four horsemen, this is the system created for us, and that has served us well.

 

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[djlowe]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, it does not, because at the Federal level, the government is not, nor ever has been, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic.

Well, it was *supposed* to be that. Now it's more akin to a fascist state, where corporations pay federal politicians via campaign donations, lobbyists, etc., to enact laws to their benefit.

And, in that light, he, you, I and pretty much everyone else are in the same boat: We're all being slowly crushed, as individuals, by what the US Federal government has become.

I suspect that Mr. Card doesn't object to that, so much as he does the fact that he's not a member of the "winning team".

Regards.

dj

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[c 0xFF]

Card was a Mormon missionary in Brazil. His understanding of the Brazilian culture and Portuguese language is 100x that of most Americans, but probably rather limited, since he only lived there for a couple years and had limited contact outside the missionary life.

Also, give a little bit of slack ... Speaker takes place a couple thousand years in the future. The more accurate depiction of the Brazilian culture, the less believable it would probably be.

BTW, just to understand your perspective, are you Brazilian? Or at least from South America? If so, I thank you for the insight. Otherwise...

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.

Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.

So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.

Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?

So.....how does this public disapproval of Card's opinion, and the subsequent story-suspension on the part of a single private business, constitute the end of democracy? Private businesses are generally not voter-controlled, but remain beholden to the laws that ARE voter controlled. Since they are within their legal rights to not publish a story, they are in no way violating or blocking the democratic processes of their government. So, I can't see how this private response to public criticism lends credence to any claims of "the end of democracy."

Further, Kyosha's example of something that WOULD be indicative of an end of democracy (laws being enacted apart from the election process) seems to be a simple observation of the proper scope of the statement "end of democracy." So I don't understand why you are accusing Kyosha of being a one sided pig. I just don't see enough material in the post to even suggest such a thing.

Think you could make this clear to me, perhaps with the same level of detail and respect as I have tried to make this clear to you?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[BasilBrush]

That video is very sad. A young guy who believes he's going to have to be celibate his whole life, because he's gay and was brought up in an ignorant church.

Of course he probably won't stay celibate, and will go through years of pointlessly feeling guilty about it.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[yurtinus]

I don't understand why everybody is getting all up in arms over this. I don't think it's possible to write any sort of story without it being a derivative of somebody else's work. Hell, Battlestar Galactica itself is just a retelling of yet another Book of Mormon story. The art isn't in making up a story, the art is in how well you tell that story.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I've always believed in separating the artist from the art.

Have you taken a long hard look at this stance? It's easy to "always" do something because you've always done it, but I've found that when I really look at the past me, it turns out that he's been wrong a lot. I used to believe this as well, but on further examination, I've come to realize that I only held that belief because it was convenient. It allowed me to listen to a band I liked, even though they'd made some statements that were ignorant at best. Pretty similar to this situation, really.

I'm not saying you should stop enjoying something just because the artist is, oh let's just pick a totally random example and say a frightened crazy bigot. I'm not saying you should even care to look it up--there's only so much time in the day, after all. But you certainly shouldn't intentionally ignore that information, any more than you should pull a $20 out of your wallet and set it on fire. That artist's views, along with everything else in their lives, informed their art. Do you really believe that knowing this about the author doesn't put some of what he wrote into a new light? He's a science-fiction author, a genre known for examining morals. Even if he tried, which very few do, to separate his own personal morals from what he writes, do you think there's any chance he succeeded?

As long as you're a human being, and not a computer, you are biased. While a computer can run a program, impartially applying an algorithm to an input and produce a consistent output, you cannot. You're changed by every bit of input you receive. The best you can do is try to make the change a positive one. Tossing out information like this puts you at a disadvantage there. You're trying to make yourself like a computer, but the best you'll achieve is sharing their biggest vulnerability; garbage in, garbage out.

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.

Maybe this will change in the future, but as of today, I hope that if I ever become a hateful bigot, society will spurn me. Is it possible that you're confusing freedom of speech with forcing people to listen? As someone who makes his living based off of what he says, maybe he should be the one being careful.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Vreejack]

On the other hand I am "shocked" to discover his position, given the homoerotic undertones in some of his works. Can we have more naked adolescent boys fighting in the shower? Preparing to fight the "buggers," no less. The man has unresolved issues.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[mcrbids]

So the Hollywood Elite can use their fame to push left leaning ideas and that's fine with you, but if someone famous tries to push conservative positions? Double standard much?

Not at all. If the Hollywood Elites say stuff that pisses off their fans, they lose popularity who then choose not to buy their stuff. I'm far less likely to go see anything with Tom Cruise in it since the whole creepy Scientology thing with his (ex)wife. He's free to say whatever he likes, and I'm free to like it or reject it.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Bartles]

I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.

Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.

So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.

Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?

Those are all significant problems with deomocracies. It's a good thing that we live in a republic, and voters don't directly control policy.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Jane Q. Public]

"This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision."

And if by that you mean supporting a Federal "gay marriage" law, this is something that is pretty obviously head-up-the-ass thinking.

Because, you see, it ISN'T just a matter of whether gay people should be married or not. Unfortunately, a shitload of bonehead do-gooder not-quite-thinkers want to get the Federal government involved. And if that isn't the worst possible thing they could do for their cause, I don't know what is.

Historically, the Federal government has had NOTHING to do with marriage (except for influencing it via taxes, which is arguably unconstitutional). It has been a State issue since before the Federal government ever existed.

But a whole bunch of people want a quick fix, and aren't thinking about the consequences. These are people who want the Federal government to get involved, and pass a law saying that gay marriage should be legal in the entirety of the Union.

But see, there are some VERY SERIOUS FLAWS with that approach. Frankly, I don't give much of a damn who marries whom. But I *DO* care whether people hand the Federal government power over marriage on a silver platter. Because a government that is given the power to give you "rights", can also take them away. A government that is given the authority to decide who CAN marry, is also given the authority to decide who CANNOT get married.

So these so-called "rights" activists (they are actually anything but), are shooting themselves in the feet. They are so determined to get a Federal law TODAY that will "fix" this issue, that they don't realize that they are trying to give government the power to turn right around and take that "right" away on the merest whim. When they should be working from the ground up to change society's rules at more of the state and local levels. That is the only way they will make it stick.

A Federal "gay marriage" law is such a massively bonehead thing to do that I am actually in awe of its stupidity. I'm not "homophobic", or anything of that nature. I'm simply saying that if LGBT people want equal treatment, rather than a "quick fix" that will likely be disastrous for them eventually, they should take the longer view, and work toward a lasting solution.

And yes, any such marriage law WOULD eventually affect me, and everybody else. There would be nothing stopping the Government, for example, from saying "From this day forward, nobody is legally married." Far-fetched, you say? Well, the Federal government has done even dumber things. Don't put it past them.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[BasilBrush]

Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law. That's what makes it an ethical issue. Every bit as much as equality for blacks and equality for women.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[BasilBrush]

That's clearly a trick of the mind, since an atheist is not religious, and therefore cannot by definition be a religious nutjob.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[MartinSchou]

Well, if you support gay marriage, you're bound to eventually support humans to marry other species.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law."

"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.

You want to get the Federal government involved? BIG mistake. Historically they have had no power over marriage, and "giving" them that power also gives them power to say who CANNOT be married. Believe it.

First, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority over marriage. It *does* have the power to enforce "equal protection under the law", but that is an existing mandate... no new law would change that. If anything, a Federal "gay marriage" law would represent UNequal protection, because there is no Federal "straight marriage" law.

The fight belongs at the State level. That's where the marriage laws are, and where they should stay. Make no mistake: if you were to "give" the Federal government the (unconstitutional) power to say who CAN be married, you had better believe that sooner or later they would use that same power to say who CANNOT.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[BasilBrush]

"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.

All of them. And not just US ones either.

You seem to be under the belief that the federal government currently doesn't marriage or have any concept of it. You'd claimed is in multiple posts. And you are clearly wrong, most obviously because there's the Defense of Marriage Act, that's a federal law that DOES define marriage as between a man and a woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you HAVE to spew ignorance everywhere.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Jane Q. Public]

"Is there nothing so stupid a libertarian won't say it?"

You mean like "read a little actual history, which clearly illustrates my point"???

I'm not going to argue with you beyond that, because if you had a real argument, and knew how to argue, you would have done so rather than trying to be insulting. Ad hominem isn't worth my time.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Greyfox]

No, that's just a failure of the tyranny of the majority.

In about half the states, the marriage between Obama's parents would have been illegal back when he was born. Such bigotry now seems quaint, although I assure you that in some of those states there are still people for whom the sentiment is still very much alive. In a few decades, our current bigotry will also seem quaint, I'm sure. I'm also sure that when that day comes, even though we're no longer oppressing homosexuals and Latinos, we'll still be oppressing someone.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Jane Q. Public]

"I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy..."

Thank you for sharing that with us. I shall henceforth make it a point to not read Stirling.

All political and other views aside, any "artist" who displays that much disdain for his / her audience does not deserve to have one.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[rocket rancher]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

lol. it's called checks and balances and it works, dude. Or did you sleep through your American Government classes in high school? America has a democratic form of government, but it is by no means a democracy. Judicial nullification of stupid laws is a good thing. I don't care what the majority thinks is right -- if it is stupid, it is still stupid, and needs to be corrected. Fortunately our system of government, via the checks and balances that the framers of the US Constitution had the foresight to write into the law of the land, gets that part right. Stupid laws get passed all the time, and they get struck down by the courts all the time.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Black Parrot]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

Yes, it's a failure of pure democracy. However, it may not be a failure of constitutional democracy, depending on what the constitution says.

Ancient Athens was a pure democracy. Also an evil empire. They voted genocide for the whole population of some island on account of some action they didn't like, and of course voted a choice between exile or death on Socrates for "corrupting the youth" with his crazy gadfly questions.

I wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy. Thank all the gods the USA is a constitutional republic, with a mild seasoning of direct democracy (at the state level and lower) via the proposition mechanism.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[clarkkent09]

Unlimited democracy = unlimited power for the 51% to oppress the other 49%

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Brain-Fu]

A bit off topic but this troubles me and I never manage to get really good answers to this one.

Supposing that "All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex" is both the letter and spirit of the current law...how does one resolve the following edge cases:

1) A naturally-born hermaphrodite who can pass equally well for either gender based upon dress. Can such a person marry someone of either gender, thus being a direct contradiction to the spirit of the law? Or can such a person just not get married, thus suffering a grave injustice? Must the person choose a gender and stick with it for his/her entire life (which seems a bit arbitrary), and will the person be forced to get a divorce, by the state, if (s)he changes his/her gender-facade after getting married?

2) If a man has a gender-changing surgery and becomes a woman, what gender can she then marry? Can she marry a man now that she is a woman? Or must she marry another woman and have an ostensibly homosexual relationship due to being genetically heterosexual?

Reflection upon these edge cases makes it seem to me that the distinction between men and women isn't quite as absolute as the law would make it out to be. Since these things can be a bit ambiguous or even change, it seems like the law should just not take gender into account (at least for the issue of marriage).

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[rocket rancher]

Agreed that he's overrated in general, but the original Ender novel is excellent. That being said, I have read about 20 of his books, and a funny thing is that Card's personal view are not at all evident in most of his books. I know he's a Mormon and everything, but the characters and situations in his stories often convey a very progressive and rational outlook on the universe.

Cord writes very well about one thing -- pain. It suffuses his novels in a way that is interesting at first, but gets decidedly old pretty quickly. I loved Ender's Game, tolerated Speaker For the Dead, and could barely finish Xenocide. Pain is fun to explore sometimes, but Card can't seem to write about anything else. I don't know where you get the rational and progressive outlook from, though -- his homosexual characters seem to magically get out of their pain by finding a member of the opposite gender. I don't find that progressive at all -- in fact it is actually pretty retarded.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[wiredlogic]

It's a failure to recognize that the constitution should not be abused for the purpose of restricting individual freedom when it is only supposed to restrict government powers.

We did it once when the temperance movement had enough populist support to ban alcohol. Now we have conservative leaning people riled up by the fundies with the notion that gay marriage is going to precipitate the same sort of doom and gloom as mass drunkness.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[dryeo]

It's even easier for a civilization to successfully propagate with a mixture. eg some same sex couples to help the opposite sex couples raise the children.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[im_thatoneguy]

When the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

Those who champion equality definitely have an unfair advantage. The constitution is designed such that minority rights can be protected. Populism can result in mob rule. If something is detrimental to society then the standard is low "Murderers shouldn't walk free and we should infringe their rights!" If however your argument is just "Gay people are icky we should discriminate against them!" judges tend to toss your law out as unconstitutional.

Slavery wasn't overturned by a vote. Segregation and mixed race marriage bans weren't overturned by a vote. There are lots of examples where the higher law "all people must be treated equally by the government" takes precedence over temporal squabbles on the details of who should be discriminated against.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[sa1lnr]

" If marriage is such an important religious institution"

Excuse me but religion has hijacked marriage as its own, far as I can tell marriage existed way before Christianity.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[ADRA]

Speaker had a fair bit of religion in it (though I thought it was presented unbiased), but Xenocide was when he took religion and spirituality and tried to base pseudo-science atop of it. It didn't stick, and the story fell to shreds, though I tried soo hard to like it.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Velex]

Yes, it's quite interesting.

What's even more interesting, though, is that the same rebuttal we get to see here on /. every time there's a story about $big_company yanking an article or refusing to sell things about $controversial_topic still applies. Free speech only applies to the government etc.

Now please help me to understand why Card's opponents, which apparently make up a good amount of the demographic of people who purchase Superman comics, would need to worry about Barbra Streisand?

It seems that what happened here is that what happened to me when I started reading Ender's Game a few years ago is now happening to many, many more people the more vocal Card gets with his bigotry. I found out he was a Mormon, and knowing what Mormons do to transgendered individuals who have the rotten luck to be born into such of a vile, regressive, and sometimes just bizarre "faith," I was unable to read any more of it.

Card has his free speech to say whatever he wants. However, if he can't tell the difference between a transgendered person (me), a homosexual man or woman, and a farm animal, I see no reason to give him any of my money, especially these days now that money is speech.

I mean, what the hell could I possibly be thinking giving money to an individual who fosters an agenda that wants to make the country I own property in a very not-so-nice place for me? I don't care if he's written the next Les Mis FFS! He ISN'T getting my money, because I know that he has an agenda and folks like me are the target.

Let's face it. If folks who were opposed to gay marriage really were about preserving the sanctity of marriage, I've got bad news for them. They're going to need to refocus quite a lot of their efforts on some very basic things such as the divorce rate. Marriage is no longer important, the idea that all the protection you need is a ring is becoming old-fashioned, and gays have nothing to do with it. In fact, these people have nothing to lose! Nobody wants to dissolve their marriages!

All it seems is that the publisher has noticed that I'm not alone and decided that they'd rather not send bad money after good and go through with publishing something that will flop for no other reason than the person who wrote the story is a complete bigot.

All that seems to have happened here is that against all odds the invisible hand of the free market seems to have done something useful for a change. Fortunately, Card lives in a democracy, and as much as I wish he would shut up, I'm not sure I'd like to live in a country where he could be shut up. All he doesn't have is the right to be heard. Rather perhaps, the trouble is that he has been heard, and now enough people have a bad taste in their mouths that they'd rather he just take his ball and go home.

In fact, it's rather refreshing to know that there are enough people who are disgusted enough with Card that it would cause something he worked on to flop. Maybe the blurb I read on Advocate.com the other day that homosexuals are no longer an effective political bogeyman was true. Maybe things really might change. Not that I'm holding my breath.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yes, I am. I also know he visited for a while. However, his contact with the country has been certainly limited. He often mistakes european Portuguese with brazilian Portuguese (he probably did some language research prior to writing the book, but neglected to account for the plethora of major differences between the two dialects, making the end result a jumble that's funny to both kinds of portuguese speakers), makes cultural/historical blunders like a bunch of space brazilians naming a colony Lusitânia when it's somewhat ludicrous to name a colony after your colonizers, especially with the overall sentment towards Portugal being quite adversarial. Not major faults and they don't make the book unreadable*, it just breaks immersion every page or so with nonsensical names (they are all hilarious), misspelled words, bad grammar, bizarre, archaic diminutives, bad translations and so on (often complete with explanations that only make it worse for being plain wrong).

*not for me, at least - I still thought it was a good book, but my girlfriend (who really liked Ender's Game) couldn't get past the second chapter. She read the portuguese version, which is arguably worse as you're reading your native language being weirdly distorted in your own native language.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Belial6]

From this day forward, nobody is legally married.

That is actually the correct answer. The big problem with the whole gay marriage debate is that our governments have made the stupid mistake of mixing church and state. Give us 'civil unions' for everyone, and let church by church decide who they are going to recognize as 'married'. Give legal status to everyone who has a 'civil union', and give no legal status to the religious title of 'marriage'.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Doctor_Jest]

Which is why our system has built-in checks and balances to protect us from the "tyranny of the mob" (I forget which Federalist mentioned that)....

But by the same token, why are the people who are against what Card says so willing to censor his work? Isn't that a bit of irony? Why would someone who thinks that everyone deserves the right to get married also think it's perfectly okay to suppress someone else's opinion that doesn't jive with theirs?

I find it mind-boggling that his story was not put into print based on other things he said. Even if the story was rampantly anti-gay, it wouldn't matter (just don't buy the issue, or as the progressives say... "turn the channel"). What matters is if it's any good. We have some of the most vile works about the basest of human evil in both print and other media, but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement of those things.

Publishing Card's story is not an admission that he's right on Gay Marriage. (I for one think the government needs to be OUT of the marriage racket.)

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[ifiwereasculptor]

Here, this mini-review actually gets more in-depth about the language problems, complete with some funny examples: http://www.thingsmeanalot.com/2009/02/speaker-for-dead-by-orson-scott-card.html

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[danlip]

The federal government got involved in regulating marriage a long time ago. Specifically the Supreme Court in 1967. See Loving v. Virginia. Why is this different?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[siride]

It's not censorship. They are exercising their right to express their own views by not supporting a bigot. Why is it okay for Card to spout this crap but it's not okay for people saying they don't want to be associated with it?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[IonOtter]

The problem with your argument is that people are *not* asking the government to create or mandate a "marriage law" as you put it. Nobody who is actually working in the courts and legislative system is asking for any particular right. Nobody is asking for that, in any appreciable numbers, or with any appreciable influence.

What IS happening, is that people are asking the government to clarify that there is no right to marriage at all.

The so-called "right" to marry who you want is what is known as an "unenumerated right," meaning it's a "right" that you have by default, with no pre-existing restrictions, conditions or provisions. It's like the air around your head: it's yours to use however you see fit, so long as it doesn't impinge upon someone else's free use.

What has happened is that individual states have illegally declared marriage to be an enumerated right that is the exclusive domain of a particular majority of society: i.e. heterosexuals.

That, along with the Defense of Marriage Act, is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

So what the lawyers, activists and people with their hands in the issue are *really* asking for, is for the federal government to step in and say, "Marriage is not an enumerated right. Constitution wins, you lose, obey the law of the land. Allow consenting adults to marry whatever other consenting adults they wish."

(With the appropriate, already established and legitimate conditions regarding age, consent, genetics and being an actual human.)

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[R3d M3rcury]

Unfortunately, a shitload of bonehead do-gooder not-quite-thinkers want to get the Federal government involved.

The Federal Government has gotten involved with the Defense of Marriage Act. I assume you're also against that.

Historically, the Federal government has had NOTHING to do with marriage (except for influencing it via taxes, which is arguably unconstitutional).

...and providing spousal benefits, which has been around for quite some time. Hell, Civil War widows got veterans benefits.

There would be nothing stopping the Government, for example, from saying "From this day forward, nobody is legally married."

Actually, I don't have a problem with this.

Personally, if I were King, I'd give the term back to the church. Nobody is married. Everybody has a civil union, under the eyes of the Government.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Doctor_Jest]

They can... but they can't tell ME I can't read or watch it. They can do like we always say on ./ ("turn the channel")... if they want to voice their opinion on the matter by complaining, fine. If they want to boycott it themselves, fine. But pressuring the company to avoid running it (or showing it on TV...) gets into MY rights to decide for myself.

Censorship does exist outside of the government's will... when someone tells ME I can't watch or read something.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[hoggoth]

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Orson Scott Card is rabidly anti-gay? Methinks he doth protest too much! Don't forget the trick the naked adolescent boy used in the shower battle was to make himself wet and slippery so the other boy couldn't get a good grip on him. And the adults were watching the naked wet slippery adolescent boys wrestling in the shower over hidden video cameras.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[readin]

The government realized that marriage had social benefits beyond the religious ones in that it provided a good unit for raising a family and provided a way to make men more civilized toward each other and toward women by channelling their competitive sex drive.

There may be similar reasons for supporting gay unions but it needs to be debated. The worst thing that could happen is another Supreme Court power grab that makes government support of gay unions a "right".

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[mdielmann]

I think Morocco has something worth looking into - there is a disjoin between civil union and marriage. I'm not sure of the details, but I noticed some reference to it when the Prince married a commoner, and the hoops to jump through for it to be okay.

So here's my idea, very loosely based on that.

Make a new contract, call it civil union. Put some rules in place for how it works, and the tax ramifications involved. Whether more than two people are allowed to take part in this becomes a legal issue, and bypasses the whole "Well, if gay marriage is okay, why isn't polygamy?" issue. This is the part the government cares about, and gives you legal entitlements, such as tax breaks/penalties and insurance benefits. Existing marriages can be grandfathered in to also being civil unions

Make marriage an entirely ceremonial process/contract, as governed by the institutions that wish to perform it. It doesn't need to be regulated by government, because it has no legal ramifications. Whichever institutions design the contract can have their own rules regarding it, such as who you can marry and how many marriages you can be in at one time. This would still allow Catholics, for example, to not allow remarriages (under Catholic authority) without annulling previous marriages.

The traditionalists get to retain the sanctity of marriage (whatever that means in this day an age), the liberals get to have their gay union sanctioned by the government, with ensuing benefits (which are already allowed in many areas), we have the benefit of not having non-governmental authorities performing contracts of a rather unique nature, and those non-governmental authorities no longer need to worry about being required to be inclusive to non-standard groups (since the ceremony has no legal ramifications, anyway). Everybody wins?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[rochrist]

Um....pressuring the company to avoid running it and boycotting it are the same things. Nobody told you you can't read it. Call OSC and ask him for a copy.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[cpt kangarooski]

You said:

Yes it is. When the majority of voters reject something, and a Judge allows it, then the judge needs to removed from the bench, and sent to prison for breaking the law.

The Supreme Court said:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[shutdown -p now]

Why should we waste a perfectly good word, that already has a well-established meaning beyond a purely religious ceremony, just to appease a few religious bigots?

We already have 'civil unions' that you describe - we just call them 'marriage'. They are already not religious in nature - I am a married atheist. The easiest way to ensure equality is to accept the obvious and start using the term to cover same-sex relationships - it's minimum hassle for maximum effect.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[seebs]

While most humans are male or female, not all are, and demanding that everyone be categorized as one, or asserting that your determination as to category is better than theirs, seems pretty arrogant.

Life is full of rough edges where theories don't quite work.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[seebs]

If he were also not getting paid for it, that might count. If he gets paid for it, he tithes from that money to the Mormon church and uses the rest to support his hobbies like running anti-marriage organizations and pushing anti-gay propaganda.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[seebs]

Not really. You just need people to breed, you could have all the kids raised by gay couples.

But this is really a non-starter argument to begin with. It is impossible for a civilization to function if absolutely everyone is a programmer, because we have no one to produce food. BAN PROGRAMMING!

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Cytotoxic]

DoMA is up for challenge in the Supreme Court this term. Should be interesting to see whether fealty to government power wins out over fealty to politics on the left, and if limits on government imposed by the constitution move the right to overcome their love of the social conservatives.

I'd be surprised if it was anything other than a party line vote, but it should be a no brainer to declare this an unconstitutional overreach in a 9-0 vote. Of course one could have said that about Wickard or Raich as well.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Maow]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

Responding to the emboldened part, if we replaced "same sex marriage" with "mixed-race marriage" or any of innumerable other terms, the answer would clearly be, "No, that's not a failure of democracy; it's democracy preventing the tyranny of the majority."

Depending on what rights it's decided are basic human rights that a government cannot revoke.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[invid]

That's why it's a good idea to limit democracy with a constitution.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Nemesisghost]

Slavery wasn't overturned by a vote. Segregation and mixed race marriage bans weren't overturned by a vote. There are lots of examples where the higher law "all people must be treated equally by the government" takes precedence over temporal squabbles on the details of who should be discriminated against.

Actually they were. Or are you forgetting that most of those where outlawed by Amendments to the Constitution(13th for Slavery, 15th, 19th, 24th all were suffrage rights) and other laws(Civil Rights Act of 1964)? Yes, most of these actions were preceded by Judicial & Executive orders, but at the end of the day they were set in stone by a democratic process.

An Old Discussion

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:An Old Discussion

[Beardo the Bearded]

Meh, the woman was a lesbian and they have an "understanding" about "business trips", "poker nights with the guys", "lacrosse trips", and "separate bedrooms".

Re:An Old Discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

A question, then: is it possible for a famous person to openly state a viewpoint without "using their own popularity" to further said viewpoint? How might someone in such a position go about doing that? Or should they simply be silenced, for fear of their fame leading people to agree with them?

Re:An Old Discussion

[stanlyb]

Good for you. But, i wonder, if you are somehow trying to deny the same right to the ones that agree with Scott's believe? Yes? Why? What the frack man, why the hate!!!!

Re:An Old Discussion

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

That is actually mainstream thought within religion-based anti-gay groups. It is their implementation of "hate the sin, love the sinner" - it is OK to be gay as long as you never act on it. Kind of like staying celibate until marriage except you never get married.

There are a lot of religious people trying to live that way - it comes down to a choice for them, they can repress their sexuality and live in a supportive community or they can accept their sexuality and be cast out all alone. For them they do not perceive it as a bunch of sanctimonious jerks repressing them, instead it is a choice between keeping the life they've spent decades building or giving that up for what may or may not turn out to be a life with more inner peace. It is not an easy choice - both options have major pros and cons.

I haven't read much, if any, of Card's books in the last two decades, so I don't really know any of the context of this Anton character. But I have to wonder if he is at least a little bit autobiographical - expressing an ideal that Card is trying to live up to himself.

Re:An Old Discussion

[camperdave]

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.

What about the opposite? If a person was using their popularity to further a point you found agreeable, would you make it known that you will patronize them? What if the person quietly held the belief you found reprehensible? What would be your response then?

Re:An Old Discussion

[Areyoukiddingme]

Frankly, I've given up on Card.

So have I, and until this posting, I was completely unaware of his views on gay marriage. (Yes I live under a rock.) I gave up on him long ago for a good reason: his fiction has gone to crap.

Card suffers the malaise of the exceedingly popular author. Because he's practically a household name across much of the planet, his publishers are utterly spineless. When he pulls down his pants and squeezes out a load of crap and calls it a novel (I'm looking at you, Ender's Shadow), they fight to publish it. The editor at the publisher should have sent it back, with a rejection letter. "Sorry, this fails. Show, don't tell." It was a bad book. He lectured at me, throughout the whole thing. It was ridiculous, and if any unknown author had submitted something that so completely trampled on good fiction writing principles, it would have been rejected. But because Card's name on the cover sells, it got published.

Terry Brooks suffers from the same problem (the Genesis of Shannara series comes to mind.), so I'm not just picking on Card.

Some authors get better with age and practice at their craft. Card is not one of them.

Ace & Gary?

[AndyVM]

Superman has options...

This is just stupid.

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:This is just stupid.

[tylikcat]

Do you understand what an anti-gay witch hunt looks like?

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. Not even if they do so in an organized fashion.

Re:This is just stupid.

[Guspaz]

There is a big difference between somebody advocating against believing in something like Richard Dawkins does, and somebody advocating active persecution of people because they're different like Card does.

Re:This is just stupid.

[amicusNYCL]

why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy?

Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want black people to be free?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want women to be able to vote?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly advocates against interracial marriage?

The times, my friend, they are a-changing. Gay rights is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The question is whether or not it is acceptable for society to discriminate against gay people. A quick glance back at history will tell you which side is going to be the winning side, in case you want to ignore the obvious trend in public polling. Card is actively advocating in favor of discrimination, and that's what people have a problem with. I don't need to claim to be a fan of Queen or have a black friend to be in favor of civil rights, regardless of which group we're talking about. I'm in favor of civil rights because it is objectively the morally right thing to do. So, naturally, I have a problem with people who openly advocate against the right thing to do.

Re:This is just stupid.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.

One of these is not like the others.

Re:This is just stupid.

[quantaman]

This isn't about Card being openly anti-gay or having an opinion, he's a political advocate on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. The only reason anyone gives a damn what Card thinks is because he's a famous author, if he's willing to spend the voice he's earned as an author to brand himself with a particular brand of political advocacy I have no problem with people rejecting his art because of that political advocacy. You can't put a hyperbaric chamber around the story and separate it from the author, a superman story by Orson Scott Card is different than the same story by someone without prominent political views.

Re:This is just stupid.

[gslj]

It is, however, a witch-hunt all the same. By encouraging others not to buy products by a person due to his beliefs (and such encouragement is inherent in the nature of an organized boycott; it is, after all, what a boycott is), you are essentially calling for that person to be rendered de facto unemployable. One can argue that this is sometimes justified, but can a person's beliefs really be considered such a situation?

Yes, yes it is. A boycott is simply a personal choice writ large. I can refuse to patronize a restaurant because it's not kosher, or because it's dirty, or I had a dirty look from the waiter, or it once mistreated a friend of mine. I haven't made the choice to boycott Card, although it's been a while since I've read him, and my reaction to his books is very uneven. If I choose to not buy his work, though, and other people make that choice, there's not much to be said unless you're willing to argue against choice. I believe that Mr. Card would agree.

-Gareth

Re:This is just stupid.

[nitehawk214]

I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.

And the fact that you lump these all together makes you a terrible person.

Re:This is just stupid.

[mcgrew]

As I mentioned in another comment, if the government stayed out of marriage the whole issue of gay marriage would be moot. Marriage was a religious institution doe thousands of years, and government should have no business in it whatever.

Re:This is just stupid.

[amicusNYCL]

That would mean removing all recognition of married couples. That would mean that a spouse who doesn't work would be considered as below the poverty line in terms of taxes and eligible for government assistance, that people cannot make medical decisions for their spouse, etc. It doesn't really make sense to do that. The fact is that civil, secular marriage is a very real thing that people engage in, there's no point in trying to close the barn door on that one. What we can do at this point is make sure that those same privileges apply to all married people, and that any two people can enter into a consensual marriage regardless of things like their sexual orientation, religion, race, etc.

But now you're talking about marriage specifically, which is just a subset of gay rights. There are still laws on the books which make homosexual behavior illegal, that's also part of the problem. There are still anti-sodomy laws, for example. If you want to talk about things that the government has no business being involved in, let's start with consensual sex between adults and move on from there. Gay rights isn't just about marriage, it's about society not singling out a group of people for additional regulations or laws because of their sexual orientation.

Re:This is just stupid.

[mcgrew]

That would mean removing all recognition of married couples.

Yes, it would.

That would mean that a spouse who doesn't work would be considered as below the poverty line in terms of taxes and eligible for government assistance

Assistance is based on household right now under present regulations, and marriage doesn't play into it. If you're making $75k/yr and your girlfriend lives with you, she's not eligible for assistance. She might get away with it, but so do married couples (I once knew a married woman who did just that).

...that people cannot make medical decisions for their spouse

You can give anyone power of attorney, marriage isn't necessary.

The fact is that civil, secular marriage is a very real thing that people engage in, there's no point in trying to close the barn door on that one.

Clever choice of words, but laws aren't Pandora's boxes. "You can't let gays marry, the barn door's closed on that one." If tax law didn't discriminate against single people (and tax law is changed very often) then again, there would be no need for marriage. Under those circumstances, if two gays wanted to have a ceremony where they swore allegiance to one another, why would anyone be upset? Marriage would mean nothing to an atheist, who could of course have a ceremony, but why would he want to? If two women held such a ceremony that had no force of earthly law, why would anyone object?

There are still laws on the books which make homosexual behavior illegal

Why not work to remove those laws? Those laws are stupid and should be repealed. "Gay marriage" is a distraction from the real problems and only infuriate people. Why make enemies when you need allies?

If you want to talk about things that the government has no business being involved in, let's start with consensual sex between adults and move on from there.

My thoughts exactly.

Card's gone over the deep end

[neminem]

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.

OSC has the right to say what he wants

[MadMike32]

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.

Nonemaibiznass

[kd4zqe]

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.

Not surprising

[ADRA]

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.

Boycott is a valid choice.

[couchslug]

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.

Re:Boycott is a valid choice.

[stanlyb]

What is wrong with one man having many women? Or one woman having many man? Illegal you say? You discriminating pig, how dare you!!!

Re:Boycott is a valid choice.

[Stormthirst]

What *is* wrong with polygamy. Provided everyone is in agreement/consenting, and no one is cheating on anyone else?

Re:Boycott is a valid choice.

[MikeBabcock]

Polygamy is no easier to abuse than a monogamous relationship except in the context of laws that don't recognize the rights of the additional wives/husbands.

Re:Boycott is a valid choice.

[ADRA]

Within the confines of a single family unit, there is absoltely nothing wrong with poligomy as long as all are fully willing participants for each major adjustment in their 'family contract' so to speak.

The problems poligomoy:
      1. They only ever exist in deeply patriarical societies where women are generally repressed or at least marginalized
      2. Its almost always forbiudden for Women to take multiple male partners, which would at least allow for some aspect of equality in the mix
      3. The practice is also quite commonly associated with with child brides (where much older men marry children/teens) which has its own set of moral and ethical problems to deal with
      4. The scarcity of partners in one sex or the other causes deep social issues where the uncoupled are deprived of a 'fair' chance to procreate, which is one reason why on a genetic level, poligomy is a problem (another is less diversity in the gene pool with a single dominant sex coupling many)

The only notable areas of poligomy I know of are in Muslim nations and in small pockets of the US/Canada where they barely escape the laws that firmly define their rights within those nations (often skirting or breaking society's laws). If someone could point out a stable large scale poligomist culture, I'd be interested in it as a purely academic perspective, because it doesn't seem to be a good poster child for a poligomist tolerant society to model itself off in terms of its legal bound regulations.

Picture worth 1000 words

[flogger]

http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg Nope, Not Goatse.

Freedom works both ways

[ravenscar]

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.

Re:Freedom works both ways

[rkhalloran]

This line of reasoning is why the last thing I've seen involving John Travolta or Tom Cruise was sitting through a TV rerun of "Grease" with my teen daughters about 15 years back. The Scientologists use celebrities to push their "religion", I vote with my wallet to not support it or them. Were they not such vocal advocates of their personal beliefs I might be tempted to see their work.

It's a free country...

[Theaetetus]

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.

My 2 cents

[TsuruchiBrian]

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.

Re:Another one for the fire

[Opportunist]

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...

Boycotting Won't Solve the Root Issue

[mentil]

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

Do YOU understand?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Banning Books Before They're Written

[_0x783czar]

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.

A stupid issue

[RazorSharp]

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.

Re:A stupid issue

[zwei2stein]

Married child-bearing people pay less taxes, because they provide important thing that you are likely not:

Future taxpayers.

You know, people who will in 20 years start paying for your roads and public infrastructure and all those nifty things that goverment provides you. And most likely for your retirement home or some other shit that you will eventually need.

So fuck you, in eyes of goverment (and in mine) you are dead-end and freeloader. Paying full amount of taxes and chipping in is least you can do to offset that.

So shut up about how unfairly you are taxed because in the end, those married people are subsiding you.

This is selfishness of stunning degree. Guess comes with your lifestyle.

Re:A stupid issue

[Big Hairy Goofy Guy]

That's an interesting perspective. I disagree with many particulars, but I'm not sure they matter.

"A monogamous relationship is a monogamous relationship." True, that. And irrelevant (imho) to legal marriage. Legal marriage is what forces third parties to treat me and my wife in a special way. So, for example, her employer-provided medical insurance covers me, but would not cover her (hypothetical) ten boyfriends. Also, she is on an international assignment, and they limit some of the benefits provided based on family size. I count, but her niece and nephew don't. Since we don't have kids, we don't get the awesome free tuition to an international school near us, and (importantly) we don't get to just pick some random relatives (or even our niece and nephew) to get it instead.

Even my Sam's Club membership automatically includes her, at no extra cost. They leverage the institution of marriage as a way of limiting the scope of the benefit of two people using one membership in a way that mostly works well for the people who act on each other's behalf.

Also, when those monogamous relationships fall apart, there is often disagreement on how commonly held property and (previously) shared responsibilities are split. That can require some form of mediation, especially because there is often a large power/status difference between the parties. That fact does not change if the government gets out of the business of pre authorizing the relationships that get special legal mediation.

So, I know you must be tired of people trying to convince you of the social benefit of legal marriage, but I'm going to try one more tactic. So many people get married and get a benefit from it, both personally (which you dismiss) and socially (which you seem to ignore) that I hope you try to see this from their perspective. Legal marriage will endure whether you join it or not (I hope). Please don't be against it; just don't join it.

-*-*-*-
Next topic, a particular that I think does matter: Taxes! "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?"

I don't know why you pay taxes - you could always move to Somalia. But I'll tell you why I feel comfortable with my government forcing you to pay taxes, especially for education. The education is not just for the benefit of the child or parent. That education benefits society. An educated populace can invent new great things for us all to use. An educated populace (in a democracy) is critical for good collective decision making. An educated populace is wealthier and safer to be in. Because you benefit from those things, my government takes a bite out of your wealth, even though you are short-sighted, tight, and stupid, as evidenced by your desire not to support those things. I wish your education had been better, but I can only imagine the horror of your ideas if you hadn't gotten at least as much as you did.

No, we shouldn't.

[mark6509]

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.

Nobody has done anything wrong here.

[conspirator23]

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.

Re:even if it wasn't against my religion

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

the entitlements of civil union

[epine]

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?

What does it matter?

[MikeBabcock]

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.

History repeats and repeats...

[Earl The Squirrel]

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.

Re:Individual or company, same difference

[MikeBabcock]

I have a basic problem with manipulating people into agreeing with me by not allowing those who don't to have an income.

The end result of a successful boycott is to either put them out of business or force them to lie about their beliefs.

Yes, its *possible* they'd change their views, but in such hostile circumstances, its more likely they'll just be more entrenched and bitter.

Open dialog with those you disagree with actually has a purpose ... refusing to buy a street vendor's hot dogs because he's a skinhead is irrational.

No "homophobia"

[markdavis]

>"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.

You're making the wrong point

[Overzeetop]

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.

Brust commented on this...

[sabt-pestnu]

... 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?

Yeah, and Piers Anthony is a perv, too.

[Theovon]

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.

Come on, Slashdot, look at the IP aspect

[porges]

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.

Re:Stop the heterophobia

[GammaKitsune]

How in he hell is the garbage rated Score:5, Interesting? Are people blind? This idiot starts out his post with this moronic assertion that it's somehow hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance! As if all stupid ideas and terrible opinions are equally valid, and that every piece of hate-filled dribble that people utter should be treated with equal respect and gravitas.

Even if they're completely wrong, as is the case right here. Guess what, you dumb fucker? Homosexuality is not wrong, and we have the science to back it up. Countless studies have demonstrated that people don't "choose" to become gay. It's not some kind of "lifestyle" or "fetish" that people are trying on. It's not even a disease of some sort that people are somehow infected by. It's a normal, healthy expression of human sexuality, and if you have a problem with that? FUCK YOU.

And don't even get me started on this "heterophobia" bullshit. How many people do we see calling for a ban on straight marriage? How many people get bullied in school for being straight? How many people are harassed for walking down the street holding hands with someone of the opposite gender? How many people are beaten to a bloody pulp an left wheezing in a ditch until they die just because they were straight? Take your "heterophobia" hyperbole and shove it straight up your ass, Zaurus.

You know why people attack you? It's because of your stupid, hateful, backwards beliefs. And when people point out what a shitwit you are, you scream persecution, because how dare those uppity faggots and dykes demand to be treated like actual human beings. You know what's really damaging to the nation? People like you. Not the gays and lesbians.

And shame on everyone who upvoted this jackass.

I wouldn't call his comments hateful

[elabs]

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.

Here's a question

[argStyopa]

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?

He never said that.

[MavenW]

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.

Re:Not Surprised

[spongman]

Who's assaulting your religion?

Nobody's forcing you to like crucifix/pee art.

Freedom from offense is not a right.

One if the many great things about lgbt people is that their very existence proves the non-existence of God. If sexuality were a choice, YOU could choose to enjoy a gay lifestyle from now on. Think about it. How about chowing down on some cock tonight? Sound good? No? Not much of a choice really...

Who decides where to draw the line?

[NetCharge]

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?

Nothing more than McCarthyism

[happy_place]

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.

 

Re:Nothing more than McCarthyism

[ultranova]

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.

Oh my, that is serious! They even got to the summary, which only talks about comic book fans considering not buying a comic book written by a crazy douchebag and entirely omitted the part about said douchebag being called before the Senate. Oh the humanity!

Re:Not Surprised

[GameboyRMH]

LOL what a delicious display of innocent ignorance and the persecution complex of the most privileged, powerful ethnic-religious group on earth - the white, Christian, first-world male. It's adorable, don't ever change. It's like a pampered, well-loved housecat bitching about how hard life is.