Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie
interval1066 writes "A story in Wired describes Orson Scott Card's quest for tolerance in response to a boycott for Gavin Hood's film adaption of Ender's Game, saying that 'The gay marriage issue is moot' in a statement to Entertainment Weekly. Card is a long time anti-gay and defense of marriage activist. 'His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human. The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies, and a way of evading responsibility for the impact of their words and actions.' I guess he didn't see this film and the box-office importance of wide appeal coming, did he?"
Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.
If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.
None of his views on this particular issue are evident in the novel, except perhaps in the naming of the aliens - and that might just be coincidence.
So make the film, and ignore where it comes from. No need to dismiss a story just because of it's author.
Really, practically every author before 1900 was an extreme racist.
You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.
From TFA:
"Responding to reports of a nascent boycott against the upcoming movie version of his beloved 1985 sci-fi novel Ender’s Game because of his stated opposition to same-sex marriage..."
Whoa, whoa, WHOA there cowboy. People aren't pissed off a Card because of his "stated opposition" to gay marriage. I don't give a rat's ass what most authors think or even what they say. The problem here is that he was so active in campaigns that were openly trying to strip the rights of others based on sexual orientation. People have the right to think what they want, but when they start trying to codify their prejudice into law THAT is where the problem starts.
Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.
It seems that there are number of groups on both sides of the isle that plead for equal rights for their believes, opinions and convictions when their cause is under attack, however they are just as eager to deny the rights, prosecute their political opponents whenever opportunity arises.
The hypocrisy present across entire political spectrum, btw. Left, Right, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Tea-partiers and Greens, and ironically Anarchists and Libertarians.
I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?
Um, no.
I've stopped giving a rat's ass about the opinions of someone just because they happen to be an athletic / film / writer / etc persona. Unless in the very rare case they're actually talking about their chosen profession.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
He wasn't anti-gay rights because he is EVIL, it was because it was his honest opinion that it was wrong for the society, and he had the arguments to back up his point of view. I never agreed with his arguments, but I saw where he was coming from.
I'll take an honest bigot over a devious do-gooder any day of the week.
It's not codified into law, huh? It doesn't have massive numbers of government benefits hooked to it, huh?
It's a shame because the trailer makes the movie seem like it will be pretty awesome, but no bit of entertainment however well produced is worth putting money in the pocket of someone who would trample the rights of my fellow citizens.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit? Many a work of science fiction has been around the theme of asking how high of a price are we willing to pay. It is the age old question of whether the ends justify the means.
Granted, this is only a work of entertainment, but his pleadings for tolerance are not dissimilar from this theme; We are being asked to set aside our morality in exchange for some good or service. I don't think though that a work of fiction, regardless of quality, is worth my freedom and liberty, and even less so for others. Supporting this man's works would mean supporting something I find morally objectionable, even vile.
I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights. Orson Scott Card -- you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I will not support you, and I urge any who place any value at all on civil rights to do the same. We cannot overlook this man's desire to force his own morality on others for our own... entertainment.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I will go to the theatre and watch this one. I don't want to see good books not be turned into movies because someone disagrees with the politics of someone involved in the project. Art should be judged on its merits. If the movie is good, I will encourage friends to go see it as well. If it turns out to suck, well then I won't mind so much if it does poorly at the box office.
It was a fairly simple book to be honest. And I did not appreciate the "twist". Even if the movie doesn't bomb I don't see this getting sequels.
Ken White over at Popehat seems to have nailed everything I would have said, and done it much better than I would have.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/09/ive-decided-to-give-orson-scott-card-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
How many authors (or chicken restaurant owners) would treat polygamists as "less than human" by supporting laws against plural marriage?
THL phish sticks
"less than human" You're a walking hyperbole aren't you?
its a christian ceremony
The fuck it is, and a few milliseconds of research would have told you as much, but I guess that is implied in the "last time I checked", which would be, never?
a source from the top of the hit list on Google, that you would have found had your bother to search
While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.
... whatever
Also his series involves some of the most twisted and intricate alien reproduction methods ever described. I can see the campaign speech now: "Sex should be between one man and one woman... or one tree and one piggy... or some grass and insects..." I guess it's consistent with the view that sex is for reproducing, regardless of your species' method.
Marriage is not a "human right"...
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should rethink that statement. Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
I mean... Mary and Joseph... Were quite married, you know?
"Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
I'll go see a better movie by a better screenwriter instead, and I will enjoy the fact that I didn't contribute anything to that festering asshole's bank account all the same.
I'm glad he was dumb enough to remind people what a cunt he is.
BTW, his work is overrated anyway.
And everyone here who is against marrying goats right now will be labeled a bigot.
It's a matter of consent. You can't marry plants or animals because they cannot legally consent to marriage because they cannot understand it. Adults of sound mind who consent to marriage can have it, regardless of their sex you ignorant bigot. Of course, keep parroting your tired and flawed arguments against gay marriage ... you've had your chance to read up on it, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
The persecution of the dissent is not unique to the gay community (after all, they have been persecuted a lot longer, and now, I guess, after gay marriage is won it is time for "payback").
A lot of posters elsewhere are using as their reasoning that they don't want their ticket money or any part of it going to Card.
Is there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales? Usually book rights are sold outright, so if that is the case he may not be getting ANY percentage of ticket sales.
...and a Hindu ceremony, and a Buddhist ceremony, and a Jewish ceremony, and a... oh, maybe in fact it's a human institution that's been blessed by various faiths around the globe then? Something humans seek to do regardless of their creed?
Seen in that context, marriage is whatever people want it to be, and it's been that way for a LONG time. Legislating it to conform to Christian ideals is theocratic.
Did anyone actually read the essay that Mr. Card wrote with clear and open mind? He is right in many aspects. Simply dismissing him as a "bigot" is rather intellectually dishonest.
As long as we as a society accept that people have the right to pick whatever fucked up religious beliefs they want, then we as a society have to deal with the consequences of real live modern humans expressing all the petty tribal prejudices of the past few thousand years, simple as that. Racism, misogyny, suicide bombers, birth control as a goddamned (no pun intended) presidential-race-changing issue... The crazy comes as a package deal, you don't get to pick and chose from God's Law (and spare me the "why don't you obey all of Leviticus" rhetoric, we already agree completely on that).
So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance. He sincerely believes that his personal storm-god objects to homosexuality. You (and I) happen to believe that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever the hell they want with each other. Both of those express nothing but an opinion, with the one no more valid than the other. We would argue that we have the "right" to choose. He would argue that yes, we do, but one of those ways gives you a complimentary handbasket for your trip downstairs.
See the movie or don't, but we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.
I saw the preview trailer and based on that there was no way in the world I was going to spend money on it. Politics has nothing to do with that decision. But my having 2 lesbians and a transexual in my extended family means that I think OSC's point of view is misguided in the very least.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
In these things, protesting just means waiting a while. Buy a used copy.
On the one hand, Card is a Bigot and I've asked my wife to stop buying his new books until he's dead because that would fund his bigotry directly.
On the other, he's not the only one that made his movie; and beyond that, once a work is out of a person's brain it belongs to the public and is open to the public's interpretation. A poem in 1744 once wrote, "He raised his plastic arm." Modern audiences today might take that to mean robot even though it meant no such thin in 1744. Similarly, the Xenocide story is actually a very warming story about acceptance of the "other". And while Card did not intend for it to be a parallel to the plight of gay people or other people who he chooses to persecute, it can be taken that way and likely will be in the future when this man is dead and buried.
I'm not sure if I want to punish everyone else involved and possibly contribute to burying the very works that might best undo Card's words and actions. I have a feeling I will see the movie and simultaneously make a donation to the LGBT cause and simply split the baby.
from the googles, not hard to find most of these. For the record, as a gay man, there is absolutely no future tolerance for a person or group of people who have systematically enacted legislation and perpetuated stereotypes and outright lies to justify my existence as a second class citizen. Its like after the 1964 civil rights amendment, you issue a statement calling for tolerance and respect of the view that interracial marriage is an abomination. Not surprisingly, Card is a member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group thats equated gays to the downfall of organized religion and government, and largely bankrolled californias proposition 8.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage..."
"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America. "
"And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming."
"in another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage."
Good people go to bed earlier.
One of the messages of Ender's game series is about tolerance, another is about bullying. Even someone who is intolerant can have beautiful things to say about tolerance. Just as a peacenic can talk about war, or someone who is themselves racist can have very profound things to say about race. Responding to someone with controvertial beliefs by harrasing, insulting, and boycotting them is not only itself intollerant, but is also bullying. Ender's Game is a case where an authors words are important, rather than their beliefs. Jefferson, Franklin, MLKing were all filandering hypocrites, it is their words which are important rather than their beliefs and actions.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
He trashes others, now he whines that others may trash him. I think I will skip the movie.
I read the book and enjoyed it, except the part where the protagonist always advanced by kicking others in the balls (as my fading memory recalls). There is an irony here somewhere.
the remainder of the series after Ender's Game deals with coming to an understanding with and realizing that the 'bad guys' weren't actually bad... which kinda IS a message of tolerance. Sounds like he's a conflicted and confused person, to me... just as the rest of us are on one topic or another.
From 2004:
See that "Preview" button?
Marriages shouldn't have any government benefit. Government benefits should only be awarded for behaviors that benefit society as a whole. All marriages (same sex or not) are completely useless to society.
LOVES the fact that Card chose to open his mouth on this immediately prior to the movie's release!
"War makes me sad." - Me
Enjoy your goat wife, we know you want one.
Not the fact that he belonged to a church that taught that people of African descent were cursed by God?
Hypocrite much, liberal crusaders?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
All I heard was Orson Scott Card say, "PLEASE SEED ENDERS GAME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE." Isn't that what everyone else heard?
Nothing to see here, except the movie, move along. I wish morons would quick bickering about someones past remarks, if everyone was under the spotlight, we would all be screwed. I have a feeling those who call out other peoples intolerances (but by doing so they ARE intolerant) in fact need to look inward, perhaps there lies the problem.
While I've seen tons of garbage posted here on Slashdot, this one takes the cake.
I'm not going to see the movie, not because of the author's political causes, but because the source material is, and always has been, grossly overrated. There are a lot of geek obsessions that I share, but also a lot that I've never really understood. Frankly I always thought that both Card and Robert Heinlein (and L Ron Hubbard too, for that matter) wrote rather juvenile-level science fiction. There are *tons* of MUCH better science fiction writers out there, and why the geek community fixate on these mediocre writers is beyond me.
I also don't eat at Chick-Fil A, not because of their anti-gay activities, but because their chicken is dry and the novelty shape of the waffle fries doesn't impress me.
So AFAIC, feel free to protest on the side of whatever cause you wish. But don't give me a mediocre writing or dry chicken if you want my business.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
If I ever manage to forgive Card for killing Ender I may manage to develop interest in his politics.
Like most political problems it seems neither side recognizes what can be a right. A right has to be universal and non contradictory. This removes all "positive rights" because they contradict the rights of the people forces to provide for it. So take marriage. The parts of two or more people living together and having sex and pledging some sort of common ownership of property etc are all rights. They require nothing of other people but to but out and leave them alone. But when the state starts granting special privlage a like tax benefits and inheritance without taxes this is a special treatment. This requires forcing other people to subsidize it.
This is the heart of the problem. Instead of granting more people special privileges we should work to remove them all so we are all treated equally and all of our rights as individuals (the only consistent basis for rights) are respected.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
That doesn't mean I have to give him my money, though.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Awesome. Let's do something about separating that 'Christian Ceremony' and the government, shall we?
Ok? Thanks. Bye.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
I know. I think I will never be able to call a gmarried couple "husband and husband" or "wife and wife"... this just goes against my religious believes.
The controversy is not – and never has been – about the content of the story. It's been about the author's political activities, which have been funded in part by the money he received for this film, and which will continue to be funded by additional income which he'll get if it's a big hit (e.g. a sequel).
Legal recognition of lesbian/gay marriage was already an issue in 1984. Couples had sued for the right to a civil marriage as early as 1971. Not that this is relevant, but it just shows that Card is either lying or doesn't know the history.
No it hasn't, and as a National Organization for [sic] Marriage board member, he knows this well. He unquestionably intends to keep fighting it. After the movie comes out.
This is probably correct; it depends on the Supreme Court. A bit baffling that this hasn't already happened, but that's the legal system dragging its feet, waiting for society to catch up.
Don't worry, Orson. No one is going to force you to get gay-married.
This is part of the Christian right's persecution complex, in which they view their declining dominance over American culture as an indication that they are about to become (and the more delusional among them thinking they already have been) a persecuted minority. Begging for "tolerance" of their intolerance is a tacit admission (whether they admit it or not) that they expect others to do to them as they've done to others.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Christians didn't invent marriage.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Marriages shouldn't have any government benefit. Government benefits should only be awarded for behaviors that benefit society as a whole. All marriages (same sex or not) are completely useless to society.
Society disagrees. Not religious society, mind you, society in general.
Couples are economically better than single parents. Trios would be even better, but our own psychology limits us somewhat from having stable three person interdependent relationships.
I forget where I heard this, so I can't attribute it to anyone. It's a paraphrase anyways. "A good author tells a story about his characters. A bad author tells a story about himself." One thing that I've seen in this whole mess about Card is that people love his books but hate him as a person. That's because he's a good author, who keeps his (unpopular) opinions out of his works (for the most part). I don't agree with his opinions, but that wont stop me from seeing his best work finally make it to the big screen.
You don't get the concept of a boycott.....
I wouldn't boycott the movie because I disagree with the artist's personal views, or I'd have to boycott a lot of art.
I'd boycott the movie because I love the book, and the movie will likely piss me off. Spoilers below:
The movie apparently doesn't have Ender killing Bonzo because they didn't want to show youth violence or bullying. There is no fantasy game. The "kids" are much older and practically adults. Locke and Demontheses are completely cut out of the story.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I find it interesting so many people are ready to boycott a movie based on a single high-profile participant's personal beliefs. (See also Tom Cruise) Do you think everyone else working on that movie believes the same? Should their livelihoods be hurt because they associated with a bigot? How many bigots do you work with? Do you know? Would you boycott a movie because the key grip was anti-Semitic? Or do we only care about the opinions of rich people?
Marriage has always been a public commitment to each other. Government insinuated itself to enforce cultiral standards as to what this meant.
It's ironic gay people could get married in a religious ceremony, but not get to take advantage of the government aspect of this. Religious folk, is it the government piece you consider as the important piece?
How bizarre, and sad, if you do.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"laws that treated certain people as less than human"
Wow so in America it's no longer even allowed to have an opinion that gay marriage is wrong. Anyone holding that opinion is automatically seen as some horrible nazi or something. You know, there's a difference between disapproval and cross burning and hate speech on posterboards.
No it damn well isn't. One of the biggest cons that Christianity has pulled is pretending it owns the marriage ceremony. It's only in the last few hundred years that the Church has got involved in the marriages of normal people (as opposed to the aristocracy). Historically, marriage as a Christian ceremony is an aberration that we're in the process of moving back away from.
Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to say, "I don't think people should spend money on this"?
I mean, sure, I'm okay with "letting the KKK talk". Does that mean I have to pay admission to hear them? Am I not allowed to say, "I don't think you should bother paying admission to that KKK rally"?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Having said that, it doesn't lessen my love for their work one tiny bit. I don't see why OSC's personal views on marriage should influence people's perception of his work when it's not even mentioned in it.
Heinlein, in his adult (not teen) later books assumed widespread acceptance of homosexuality and plural marriage.
At least Lazarus Long's giant freakin' harems of women following him seemed like a plural marriage.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Who demands tolerance for those who fight tolerance and propagate intolerance, has to be absolutely clueless about what tolerance really is, and what it is good for.
After seeing the trailer I think they gave away the plot twist right at the beginning... that is a reason not to see it ;)
I will quite readily accept OSC's right, or anyone else, to watch the movie. Doesn't mean I have to. Nor does it mean I'll force anyone else to do so or not to do so.
That's all tolerance is.
Please seed!!!!1!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
My wife and I are polygynists, and while I am fully for equal rights for non-abusive polygamists, even I can see that there is going to be a fundamental difference between ceasing to worry about gender in marriage, and completely redesigning several parts of government and corporate bureaucracies to allow for legal poly unions. Think of all of the FORMS, man! I mean, it's easy enough to write a woman's name in a man's place or vice-versa, and even redesigning them to say "spouse" instead of "husband" or "wife" isn't a real big deal - everything still lines up. But extra fields? Entirely new forms? From GOVERNMENT WORKERS? Who then have to get them approved, in triplicate, by superiors and superiors' superiors? ;-)
It's going to be an uphill battle, to say the least. But at least the fundies are now unintentionally working for us. Since they see that gay equality in government is inevitable, they are now arguing (correctly, by the Constitution, in my opinion, but still perhaps for other reasons) that government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If they succeed in that, then perhaps the government will change all government recognition of marriage to "civil unions", and it is a shorter walk from that to "family contracts" than from where we are now.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
You forgot about Kurt.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Marriage is not a "human right"... its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.
Okay, how about a car analogy: "Only Fords are cars. You can call Toyotas anything you want, just not a "car". I've only had Fords, the way the maker intended."
I am not a crackpot.
My mom is a huge opera fan, and my brother goes along with her often when he can. It's not my thing, but I respect the history of the art form and I don't hate the music.
As a German-American family, perhaps, they're especially fond of the Ring Cycle. When they get a chance, they buy tickets to all four productions and go see them one after the other.
This is despite the fact that everybody who knows anything about opera knows that Wagner was a *huge* anti-Semite.
They both know this, and reject his point of view. But that doesn't stop the music from being great.
Now, it's a bit different when the artist is still alive and making money off his work, I'll grant you. But all the same, I have a hard time judging Card's work based on his personal points of view.
Yes, his Mormon-influenced views about people marrying young and as virgins and then having at least three to five children are a prominent influence on his plots. But I don't remember seeing anything anti-gay in his stories, either. He seems to keep that in a separate compartment from his creative life.
I'll go to see the movie, and judge it based on its own merits.
TFS would make a lot more sense if it mentioned Orson Scott Card is the author of Ender's Game instead of just some random nut.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Even if we assume that Card is a condemnable bigot (which I find hard to do in earnest given his obvious ability to separate his political views from his literary works), people never seem to understand that answering hate with hate just entrenches both sides further. Ironically, a little turning of the other cheek would go a long way towards dissipating the caustic atmosphere, especially with people like Card admitting defeat.
If you decided to boycott the work of everyone who's ever held a discriminatory view, you'd be left with a very small library.
wrong, marriage existed long before the christians started to use it.......
No I mean someone who wants to use the force against a group of people who are not harming him in anyway.
The simple rational thought here is that gays getting married do not impact him one bit, so he should be quiet about it.
Actively campaigned and funded groups seeking to deny rights to others. As such many people do not want to patronize a film that will give him more money to do so. He's more than free to say and do all he wants and he is not having his freedom of speech abridged because I and others choose not to go see this movie.
I know someone who changes the channel or switches stations when either a Jane Fonda movie or a Barbara Streisand song comes on.
I think it's silly.
Guess what I think of this?
So, the Scientologists think gays are low toned. So, I should not watch anything with Kisty Alley, John Travolata, or Tom Cruise in it?
Sorry, but even though Yusuf Islam made some less than stellar statements about Salman Rushdie (and then backtracked, apparently) , I still listen to my Cat Stevens albums.
This certainly doesn't mean authors/actors/performers can't be strongly criticized for what they say. And things like The Turner Diaries are certainly worth criticizing as heavily as possible. But boycotts aren't on my list for creative works that themselves aren't hateful.
And it often hits others involved who haven't really done anything.
I'm sure boycotting Ender's Game will really show that darn Ben Kingsley.
For me, the enemy is the MPAA.
I see all these posts on here attacking OSC and it's clear to me that he's a target of convenience for certain political views, but in the end, he's of no significant consequence. Sure, he's loud, but he's preaching to the choir. Those who agree with him will nod, and those who disagree will yell.
The MPAA, on the other hand, has the ear of lawmakers, law enforcement, treaty-signers, and judges.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I just thought about what might happened if someone with beliefs like Orson's ever got hold of the ubiquitous surveillance of the government. Picture someone with such strong beliefs about "sending a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior" having control over the NSA.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Frankly, I had forgotten how vocally anti-gay Orson Scott Card is these days. Good thing he reminded me; otherwise I probably wouldn't have remembered to boycott his movie.
Gotta love the Streisand effect
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
That has nothing to do with gay marriage because marriage in general already violates equality before the law. Two unmarried people are treated differently than two married people, gay or straight. Divorcees and widows/widowers are also treated differently from never-married people.
Equality before the law is a great concept and I support it, but using it in this argument is pure hypocrisy. You're using equality before the law to promote laws that reinforce non-equality before the law.
I just bought two of Card's books. The first in audio form for a trip. The second because I like the first one. I too want to defend the rights of all to marry whomever they please but after reading the comments I am convinced that I can enjoy the books/movies without worrying about the authors sociology-political viewpoints. I just might not invite him to dinner.
Seriously - asking the Left to be open-minded or tolerant is silly.
Tolerance does not mean you have to give pass to actions of others that seek to purposefully and negatively effect your life and those of others. Being tolerant and open-minded also have little to do with the fact that people can choose to or choose not to go see someone's movie.
I meant to say the force of law. I am not accusing Mr.Card of using the force to strangle homosexuals or government officials.
Because as soon as someone is called a hater, there is no recourse to any rational discussion or compromise on an issue.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
No, by "bigot" we mean the very dictionary definition of the word:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
What is so horrible about letting people believe what they want, and feeling free to speak one's mind either in agreement or disagreement?
Imagine that someone with an opinion contrary to mainstream Slashdot thought were to speak up in a post. People here would of course treat that person with respect, and would never stoop to calling him a bigot and worse.
Oh, wait.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Because OSC had the gall to speak out, he is being lamblasted, mocked, taunted, boycotted and frankly many of the things people claim are hate crimes are being enacted upon him.
Everybody says it is because of his actions.
So effectively, what you are saying is if he just kept his opinions to himself, it would be Okay. Hypocritical?
What I am hearing is it is okay to speak out, boycott, make a big stink, as long as it aligns with the liberal left. But if it is in disagreement, then you are blasted for being an ignorant, religious uneducated fool.
I think Tolerance is exactly what is needed here. People need to understand that our society is founded on disagreeing and allowing disagreements. Why are people trying to stifle somebody's opinion that disagrees with them?
tora
This is /., we were all going to pirate it anyway. The discussion is just to give people an opportunity to bitch about something instead of writing code.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
polygyn
I see what you did there!
THL phish sticks
It will backfire because
1. Controversy drives people to see what people are complaining about
2. When people unfamiliar with Ender's game see the film and don't see any anti-gay homophopbic craziness they'll conclude it was a whole bunch of stupidity on the part of those picketing out front.
Picketer outside of theater
"Don't see Ender's game. It's written by a homophobic religious nut who calls for gays to be imprisoned for trying to marry!"
Movie goer:
"Really? I'll have to see this film! I bet it's filled with crazy anti-gay stuff!"
Movie goer after the film:
"What a crock of crap! There wasn't ONE instance of anti-gay stuff in that film!"
I really wish the government would just rename all marriage, as it applies to government recognition, to civil unions and allow anyone to apply for one. I'm sick of this whole debate. If the majority of society have defined marriage as a religious institution, than the government shouldn't be protecting their particular religion's interpretation of that institution.
It creeps me out to hear Orson Scott Card say these mean things. Especially in 2013. It's kinda sad. I mostly feel sorry for him because he has a lot of anger being channeled into his hate and it is affecting our community. That being said: I still really want to see the movie with Harrison Ford. It looks cool. Pretty much every artist I am a fan of has said something stupid or totally ignorant. News flash: most of Hollywood biggest stars never bothered to earn a GED. I am OK with Orson Scott Card pleading ignorance. Hopefully he will be exposed to a more enlightened view after all this.
>His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human.
Really? Less than human? Because you get taxed differently and don't have visitation rights at a hospital? It's an insult to victims of real humanitarian crises like genocide and slavery to talk about this relative first world problem in such terms.
that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others â" is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies
Expressing opinions is a basic human right; therefore there is no such thing as hate speech, only speech. If you are seeking to silence someone because you don't like their ideas, its you who are curtailing rights!
Until Card is actually using using force to deny someone something, he isn't curtailing anything. Labeling an idea hate speech is basically the same thing as an ad hominem argument. If you think his ideas are wrong, tell us why! Attaching a politically charged label to them without any facts, or defined philosophical argument just makes your position look so weak it cannot withstand a real debate.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
That's the point of art. If it doesn't have a message, what's the point?
Beauty. Entertainment. Financial gain. Preserving a moment. Art does not have to have a message though it certainly can have one - good art frequently does. Sometimes the artist isn't trying to communicate any message but the viewer of the art may create their own "message" based on their own life experience. Sometimes a picture is just a picture to the person creating it. Frankly I think "artists" who think the only purpose to art is to communicate some sort of political pandering are rather tiresome and rarely very clever. This especially includes those who use their artistic fame to communicate some message outside of their art. They have every right to do it but it's usually pretty pathetic.
Salman Rushdie on Bill Maher discussing "9/11 liberals"
Maher: I've repeatedly been booed [by liberals] for saying that all religions are not alike. ... clash of civilizations.
Rusdie: It's not us who changed, it's Islam that changed.
Maher: This is not all Muslims
Rusdie: Politically manufactured rage, manufactured for political purposes.
Basically they boil it down to a problem not with Islam but with clerical Islam.
Generic old white guy in suit jacket: That's the correct analysis, but the question is how do we respond to it?
Issuing a Mormon fatwa against the gay lifestyle is certainly one response to a behaviour you don't like, but not one compatible with what we think of as western civilization, of which the close-cropped lawns of Utah reluctantly remain a part.
In my view the only legitimate way to "sanctify marriage" (if that is your agenda) is to live a good marriage in your own life, and lead by positive example. In a liberal democracy, the self-appointed guardians of God's will must content themselves with extracting the mote in their own eye.
Majority rule shouldn't become such an oppressive stick that politics by moral recruitment becomes an indispensable battle ground. That's the whole point of liberal democracy: we don't have to engage in divisive politics to shape the majority, because the majority doesn't wield those powers in the first place. Historically, the anti-gay sentiment resembles the anti-Jewish sentiment. If you persecute a population, it will usually succeed in eliciting enough negative behaviour to justify further persecution. The problem is that as soon as society relaxed this persecution, it becomes evident that the persecuted population is just like the rest of us, for better or worse.
While the anti-majority precept of liberal democracy doesn't stop the train completely, one set of brakes is better than none.
Now I might have to go see it just to piss off the self-righteous and intolerant geeks around slashdot. It's sad most of this conversation will be people intolerant of others intolerance.
I remember reading Enders Game and thinking it was weird that the little kids slept naked. Then I read Seventh Son and Card managed to have a scene where Alvin Maker wasn't wearing any clothes in bed. I remember red flags going up with both books. Now Orson Scott Card is against same-sex marriage? Anybody else think this is strange? I'm not a psychologist but I play one on the internet.
On the one hand, I don't think people's art should be boycotted because of the artist's personal views. On the other hand, I would hate to see money I've paid to see the art going (in part) to support a cause I oppose.
I won't see the movie because I'm not an Orson Scott Card fan. However, if I were, I would also donate the price of the admission to a marriage equality organization. In this way, I would in some small measure be counteracting any damage that the price of my movie ticket might do.
I think positive support for organizations that promote gay marriage is more productive than boycotting Card's work.
Somewhere along the way, some bigot, racist, or what not....helped produced the food you eat. Perhaps, in the same light, you should cease eating and starve.
Also, realize that this is one person of thousands who made this film.
... in comparison to the fundamental right to life for late term fetuses and victims of partial birth (or even post-birth) abortion. A lot of the people casting stones at Card for not obsequiously leaping to redefine the word "marriage" (despite its pretty much universal hetero meaning for all of recorded history) give a collective yawn as babies are butchered. They even have the gall to call anti-abortion activism a "war on women" despite overseas abortions literally slaughtering young women by the millions so families can instead have a male child. Civil rights leaders line up to defend abortion in America despite it being (both by original intent and unarguable effect) a massive ethnic cleansing operation to cull babies of color.
Throw that black baby on the trash heap, but O! the Horror! if you don't let John and Steve play a little game and pretend (by absurdly borrowing hetero nomenclature) that they are a fundamental unit of the biological continuation of the human species.
Civil rights issue, my behind. The sickening irony of the modern liberal mindset makes me mad.
Really? Because I pretty much found the Left conveniently silent when Bush sent our forces to war to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq - two groups that had SPECIFICALLY said they want to harm the life of Americans.
Face it: both the Right AND Left are hypocrites, cheerfully campaigning on whatever issue suits their POLITICAL goals and clothing it in moral righteousness BUT likewise ignoring parallel situations in which that same logic might apply, but doesn't suit their political agenda.
-Styopa
No boycott is going to slow this juggernaut down.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It is psychotic to put Card in that company. Anyone who knows anything about literature knows this.
Even if 1,000,000 people agree with you, you'd still be wrong. You are definitely entitled to your ignorant opinion, just as I can say that, IMHO, Windows Vista, Linux Gentoo, and Unix are the most important OS's in history and people will only remember them in the future...
These 'future people' you speak of will certainly be able to access information easily about virtually every author ever, including the author of yours and my posts on this site.
My point is, your misunderstanding of what 'people' find to be influential and/or classic literature is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of both 'people' and 'literature'...
'great literature' is like 'art'...it's virtually impossible to define but has a fuzzy meaning that virtually everyone agrees on...
'literature' as you are trying to use it indicated works that subject matter experts and especially **a consensus of other writers** consider definitively influential in some capacity to the art of writing letters for entertainment/edification
No one, and I mean not one serious critic or writer of literature would talk of Card's work in this context.
Yes, YOU have a right to an opinion on literature, even though you have no idea what it is, you just know what **you like** and what you've **heard others like**
So you can still have your opinion...and I can point out how stupid it is
Thank you Dave Raggett
Thankfully you're in the minority.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Well, actually, I'm not all that fond of the messages in Ender's Game either.
But even if I thought Ender's Game was an important movie with positive moral lessons in it, I would, in fact, be boycotting it because I "disagree[] with the politics of the IP owner of the work".
Card isn't just a random bigot. He actually joined the board of directors of the main lobbying organization against same-sex marriage, and publicly advocated the overthrow of the government if same-sex marriage were made legal. (Of course, now it's "moot".)
Some works can be separated from their authors, or excused as having flaws endemic to the time they were created. But there's a continuum between that and profiting a leader of a movement you disagree with deeply. I don't know where the line is - there probably isn't a bright sharp line anyway - but Card is way past that line.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
you could remove Card and insert Phillip K. Dick...that would be about right.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It seems pretty hypocritical of the LGBT community to demand tolerance and acceptance of their point of view and then seek revenge on anyone who differed in opinion. Why can't they accept that people disagree and leave it at that?
..and I think the author is a prick
I can easily separate the art from the artist
He doesn't like homosexuals because they are homosexualls.
We don't like him because he's bigoted against homosexualls.
It is pretty much the same*, and I don't see how it is a "bullying tactic" to say so. The cowards are the ones that are afraid of the truth.
*The difference is one is based on biology and one is a learned behavior. But the bigotry was learned by him and now is so ingrained that he can not choose to stop being bigoted any more than a homosexual can choose to stop being homosexual. He can pretend to not be bigoted, he can hide it, but asking him to do that is just as bad as asking a homosexual to hide their homosexuality, and it won' t make it go away..
Not that I'm saying you should pay to see his movie because of this; as others have said, there's a difference between tolerance and financially supporting. I'm just saying that yes, if you are intolerant of him then you are doing the same thing he is doing - being intolerant of others - and it does not make me a coward nor a bully to say the truth.
Marriage is not a "human right".
Wrong. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16, section 1:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Actually, he's just not as bad as some bigots. He argued in favor of keeping homosexuality illegal, until that was overturned. (Became "moot"?) Then he backtracked, and now says, essentially, that he's not in favor of re-criminalizing it. But 'not wanting to make something illegal' is rather short of 'accepting' something.
As to "homosexuals want to change the definition of the institution" - there are a lot of definitions of the 'institution'. For example, Catholics don't accept that marriage can be divided. Divorce is not possible in the Catholic church. But they don't argue that divorce be made illegal - they don't argue that non-Catholics can't get divorced.
And there's the key distinction - between religious concepts of marriage and the actual legal arrangements. There's already a significant different between legal marriage in the U.S. and the Catholic definition of marriage. Couples that are legally divorced are still considered married in the eyes of the Church.
What 'homosexuals' - and, demonstrably, a fair number of straights and others - want to change is the legal framework of marriage. Mormons like Card are free to have lots of additional restrictions about marriage - must be between a man and a woman, they have to wear special undergaments during the ceremony, whatever, I don't know or care - for the members of their church. But they don't get to force everyone else to marry like their religion says.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Ever seem odd that you are not considered responsible enough to drink at 18, but are allowed to vote.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Is supporting the adaptation of sci-fi books to movies worth funding the oppression of the whole LGBT community? I don't think so. Comic book movies flopped hard in decades past but they're half of what comes out of Hollywood these days. Let this one flop.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.
That really depends on how you date Christianity. IfThe statement "Marriage" predates Judaism is harder to prove. In fact I presume Card would argue that it goes back to "Adam" and "Eve". Is Card a creationist?
He is not politically correct......check
He is not socially correct........check
He has opinions that many find suspect.....check
His opinion is protected as free speech......check
He is a writer that many find enjoyable to read.....check
Just because his opinions does not matches yours you will not read or view movies based upon his works? Now has anyone find this to be disturbing? Because he has opinions which differs from the current world view he needs to be shunned and ignored?
So who really has the closed mind and narrow point of view? Does it not work both way?
Oh wait no it doesn't, it only works for those with the biggest bat, so who is really the bully here?
"Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit?"
Why don't you ask the NASA about their early rocket program about poisonned fruit ? Like about "Von Braun". Or ask if we burned down all the research result mendele did. In both case the answer is : we swallowed the poisonned fruit ignoring what the persons did.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The hell it is. There is nothing Christian about marriage. Now stop trying to take all the worlds rituals. Marriage predates Christianity. (How the fuck do you think Jesus's parent got married you fucking moron)
Sorry but your an ignorant troll and need to be treated as such.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
You don't stop developing until shortly after your death.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I wish Orson Scott Card was right, that the equality issue was now "moot". It's far from that, but momentum is building in what I think is the correct direction. But, in spite of his homophobic and other offensive views. Why? Because, I agree with Stephen Brust about blacklisting him setting a dangerous precedent. Also, in spite of his other BS, I like the story. I find it engaging and interesting and the movie looks like it will be well done and worth seeing.
Oh, the trials and tribulations of a network geek! Read about them at: http://www.ryumaou.com/hoffman/netgeek/
The "chicken restaurant owner" is not the owner, he was the CEO and was asked a direct question which he answered with his honest belief. He didn't change company policy to be anti-gay, nor express any comments on the "chick-fil-a gay days" held. In fact, gays do work there and are obviously served there, both without prejudice. I don't believe that is the same as what Card is doing.
I hear a lot of words coming out of Card's mouth (or his keyboard;
little the difference).... and strange among this is that none of them
contain a simple _apology_.
An apology says:
1) I was wrong
2) I am sorry for what I did
3) I will try not to do it again.
And ALL THREE of these parts are missing. He wants forgiveness,
but he's not willing to admit that maybe he was wrong, sorry for what
he did, or that he won't do it again!
Therefore, I will boycott Ender's Game, and encourage others to
do so as well. When it becomes available in a format that does
not put money into Card's (or his compatriots) pockets, such
as Netflix, then perhaps I'll see it.
Or perhaps not. I don't know yet, and I don't care.
If I boycott something, am I not just expressing *my* point of view?
Dune was a good book, but made a crappy movie.
The same could be true of "Ender's Game"
I sympathise with this view entirely. If people are leaving you alone and harming nobody while behaving differently, then just leave them alone.
Like Muslims, you racist bastard?
Leaving you alone and harming nobody doesn't sound like a muslims to me
Grammar aside this is a very insightful post. In fact Islam teaches Orson Scott's views taken to the extreme:
Allah Most High says: "Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives that Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress" Koran (26:165-66)
"The Prophet (saws) said: (1) "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him." (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)
"May Allah curse him who does that Lot's people did." (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))
"Lesbianism by women is adultery between them." (Tabarani, sahih)"
This in practice means that homosexuals are often killed in Muslim countries
You're right. If a woman marries many husbands, it is not polygamy.
It's polyandry.
I vote with my dollars. I don't shop at stores that don't treat their employees well. I don't do business with places that differ from my politics. We live in a capitalist society and if you're not voting with your dollars, you're not voting.
A missionary, by definition, is someone trying to sell you their religion. Not only that, but he wants you to give up your religion. This is based on his unshakeable belief that his religion is the correct one, and that all other religions are therefore wrong. Most missionary efforts also include some sort of charitable works, such as building schools or digging wells or whatever, but the proselytizing is always part of it.
No missionary ever has considered that maybe, just maybe, his religion is not the "true" one, and that by converting people of other religions to his, he is maybe, just maybe, taking them away from the "true" faith, and thereby doing harm to their immortal souls.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Really? Because I pretty much found the Left conveniently silent when Bush sent our forces to war to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq - two groups that had SPECIFICALLY said they want to harm the life of Americans.
What I saw was the opposite. None of the "leftists" I know or ever talked to during that period were supportive of it and many were quite vocal in opposition.
Face it: both the Right AND Left are hypocrites, cheerfully campaigning on whatever issue suits their POLITICAL goals and clothing it in moral righteousness BUT likewise ignoring parallel situations in which that same logic might apply, but doesn't suit their political agenda.
Sure, both extremes are asshats and hypocrites. Either way, Card is just having his own tactics turned against him so I have little sympathy.
You cannot legitimately be aware of the sellers intentions with the proceeds of the sale prior to a purchase. Whether your baker is selling crack cocaine on the side, or Orson is a bigoted gay-bashing asshole who supports anti-gay parades, it should be divorced from content. Otherwise, normatively, we are placing an insurmountable burden on ourselves of ascertaining people's intentions and morality prior to any commercial transaction. Question is, once you know their intentions, should you re-evaluate the purchase. And the answer is, obviously yes! If you're talking about economic sanctions, and that's what a boycott is, it needs to be directed against the core of this bigotry. If you legitimately believe that your contribution to Card via the movie is primarily going to lead to increased anti-gay activity, and that is reprehensible enough to you, then screw it. However if you think that out of your ticket cost, the tiny portion that goes to Card, and the tinier portion that goes towards his activism, is a worthwhile price to pay for the pleasure of watching the movie adaptation of a truly awesome book, the answer is less clear cut. Therefore, my position: YMMV. I personally will watch the movie - because the short sum that goes from my ticket to Card is easily offset. Doesn't work from a categorical imperative perspective, but as I often say, fuck Kant!
Not sure if troll, ignorant douché or both.
Polyandry is still polygamy.
Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
Well, I'm going to vote with my dollars that I think voting against this movie is not a net good. I am capable of enjoying products made by people that I disagree with, and don't want to discourage them from producing more. I felt the same way about Armikrog and contributed significantly more to the kickstarter than I would have if people hadn't tried to make creating a good game a political issue.
With Chick-Fil-A, enough people felt the same way that their profits increased rather than decreased from the boycott, and they managed that without my involvement one way or the other (my use of Chick-Fil-A did not increase or decrease).
I see this all the time. People think freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of speech. You're only (relatively) free from consequences from the government for your speech (at least in U.S.).
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Quoting Wikipedia: "Biologically, an adult is a human being or other organism that is of reproductive age (sexual maturity).".
You're confusing adulthood (a biological term) with age of majority (a legal concept).
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
It shouldn't influence anyone's perception of his work, but it should influence whether they're willing to support him financially, especially considering that we're talking about far more than personal views - he contributes to anti-gay-marriage lobbying organizations.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I certainly don't agree with any of his opinions on politics, philosophy or morality. I do, however, agree that one can love an author's work even while hating what else the author stands for. If Hitler himself had written Ender's Game, it would not have made the book any less good. I'm not going to boycott the movie solely because it was based on a book written by an increasingly disgustingly crazy person. (Though I no longer buy his *new* books without checking the reviews, as he has, in fact, gotten increasingly crazy.)
If you tolerate intolerance, you allow it to thrive, nearly rendering the cause pointless. Intolerance isn't just "subjectively crazy," it's objectively harmful.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Tolerance is not someone with 'progressive' values (which are well over a century old by the way). Tolerance is someone that has a set of values, whatever they are and accepts people into their daily life who have diametrically opposing values. If your a flaming gay and can't accept anybody that supports gay marriage your not a tolerant person. If your a straight person and keyed the car of the guy with the gay marriage bumper sticker your not tolerant.
Tolerance is about accepting people in your life who's values are different from your own, and that's what so many people nowadays seems to fail to understand. It doesn't have a god damn thing to do with your political or religious beliefs. It doesn't matter where you live, what you believe in or anything else. The only thing matters is your willingness to accept others into your life that don't share your values.
I've known people that were firmly opposed to gay marriage yet were still friends with gay people and were perfectly comfortable going into a gay bar. Likewise I've known gay people that were militant and intolerant of anyone that did not have a hard line radical view.
No, by "bigot" we mean the very dictionary definition of the word:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
Are you sure that's not under the entry for Slashdot Reader? ;)
I'm not a huge fan of OSC, but now I'm going to go see the film just to express my support for the idea that people shouldn't be financially persecuted for having unpopular opinions.
Most of Hollywood believes in violating the right to keep and bear arms. If I went by the right-supporting stance of writers, producers, directors or actors, my movie viewing would be extremely limited.
Hollywood even does this while representing gratuitous gun violence by the heroes in their films. At least Card doesn't have this element of hypocrisy.
If you change the context, and mention that conservative Muslims should likewise be completely shunned from consideration because they are even more homophobic, MURDERING gay men for their choices, suddenly culture and context is an exonerating factor.
Hi. Liberal here. And no, it's absolutely not OK for Muslims in Muslim countries to be doing that, in my opinion.
But my opinion doesn't hold much weight in Muslim countries because I don't live in a Muslim country. I live in the United States of America. And in my United States, "Other countries are behaving even worse" is not an excuse to deprive other American citizens of the rights and privileges I have the good fortune to have been blessed with by virtue of my birth.
My United States doesn't set its standards based on the actions of other nations. My United States sets its standards based on the ideals upon which it was founded. If your country doesn't hold itself to a similar standard, then congratulations, you're part of the problem.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
you made two fouls...you made a sentence fragment/hotlink as a 'response' and you babbled incoherently making points that are parenthetical at best...
but you brought up Pynchon and so at least that's a reference point...see, his work is 'literature'...and I don't even really like it...but it is 'literature' in the definition GP was attempting to use
you could insert the works of Pynchon or, IMHO, K.S. Robinson (Mars Trilogy) for Card in that list...or Phillip K. Dick...he's the obvious choice
Thank you Dave Raggett
Lesson: Don't believe everything you hear and read.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I think we throw around the term 'Human Right' a little to flippantly. The last time I looked Marriage is not a Human Right. It is a government granted privileged, and what the government gives they can take away.
We need to calm down a bit on this whole Human Rights issue.
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, twenty years ago the position you now find so offensive was the standard position for almost all Americans.
No. It was not. Twenty years ago, the standard position for almost all Americans might have been that gay marriage should not be allowed. If that was all this was, I might even see the movie. The issue I have is with this.
I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
That's Orson Scott Card saying that if gay marriage is ever legalized he will act to the best of his ability to destroy the US government.
You misunderstand by thinking that I think all bigotry is equal.
I don't care how sensitive his fiction is, if he essentially threatens armed revolt over the issue I have issues with supporting him in any way. As far as I know, he's never retracted those sentiments.
This also makes his "it's moot" statement ring all the more false, because it's at this point he would (if his prior article is at all honest) begin using his resources for really dangerous and objectionable things.
...it just creates new ones.
The moment I read Orson Scott Card's article for The Mormon Times, he became dead to me as an author, which is unfortunate. I had enjoyed his fictional works up until that point, but I could not in good conscience continue reading work created by someone with such monstrously skewed views regarding equal marriage rights. Marriage rights is one of the least of the world's issues, and certainly not worthy of his call to overthrow the government. From that point forward I understood that Card was an individual so caught up in the tenets of his belief system that he could not bear the thought of that belief system being changed, even though we are supposed to be living in a country with a separation of Church and State (and let's not go off on to that tangent right now or we'll be there forever).
I have made a personal choice to avoid this man's work because I consider it to be contaminated with his personal views. However, I believe his statement regarding tolerance has some merit, not because he said it, but rather because punishing an adult by doing something to them that they have done to someone else rarely changes that adult in ways that are beneficial. There is a distinct difference between justice and revenge. "We should ruin him because he said hateful things," is in itself a hateful thing to declare.
That said, here is nothing wrong with stating the following: "Look at what Orson Scott Card wrote. I disagree with what he said. What do you think?"
You are committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence. You list those disparate groups together, making them seem equivalent, when they are not. Some are seeking to expand freedom, or to support a political system, while others have a goal of removing freedom from others. Some groups spread oppression and hate- why should they deserve tolerance? I'm ignoring the 'crazy' modifier you've attached to each group, including the groups where it's not redundant.
Also, a boycott is not a form of an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is more like "You're wrong because you're a jerk!" A boycott is not part of a logical argument, although they may result from one.
Ah, but there's always more than one definition of a word. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigoted
[...] strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause.
The key there is "without just cause". Card forms opinion based on a very general attribute of the person without checking his assumptions about that person. Those of us who have judged Card to be a prick have done so based on his own comments and actions. Yes, we are obstinately devoted to our opinion that he is a prick, but it's based on judgement of his actions, not prejudgement based on unfounded assumptions about him.
Seriously, I know it's linguistically sticky, but can we all get past this pedantic nonsense that being intolerant to intolerance is some kind of contradiction?
Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
Yes, and you and I agree. I was not claiming that anyone criticizing Card was a bigot nor was I saying his views should be tolerated. I in fact in my posts have stated the opposite repeatedly. You misunderstood what I was saying.
So, its OK for him to be an intolerant bigot when it comes to being gay or jewish, but we are expected to tolerate his intolerance? I guess this some how makes sense in his messed up head. After all, we are talking about a guy who believes magic underwear will save him from demons.
If he wants tolerance, he will need to show some tolerance himself first.
Both Bach and Wagner are long dead, receive no royalties thus consuming their content doesn't fund their behaviour.
By consuming Card's works you both indirectly fund his activities attacking equal rights and by making him more successful you add to his ability to push his homophobic viewpoint at more people.
Why not tolerate it?
Let me put a few things in argument.
Regarding 1. The human race long terms needs to lower at least part of the populace to be birth rate lower than replacement. Yes. It does. And as the population keeps climbing, the sooner this happens, the better. I'll add another angle. Maybe its meant to happen. Maybe the brutal fact is that as humans evolve, and as our resources dwindle, maybe this is inate that our species has self limiting procreation. If not, we are looking at lemmings off a cliff population collapse in the long term. In the short or medium term, America to cite your example is upward trending population. Off setting that is an important query that has to be answered.
Regarding 2. No, new diseases would be a by-product of life. Blaming a grouping or culture specifically won't stop diseases and the evolution of disease, bacteria, or viruses. And if we're really going to talk about this - the church can always cease its claims in Africa - which are an absolute lie - that condoms cause AIDS.
Regarding 3. No, I don't think so. Its much more likely to be a settled social structure at peace with itself, unless someone is going to go outside the social norms and start being violent against a grouping who frankly only wish to live free lives.
And yes, the Koran and Bible are full of hate speech, and the groupings that bash the books and want to get out of hand about it need to be firmly reminded, no, put firmly in place that in the west, we removed the teeth from religion and became free and secular in spite of both, and with help from neither. Fundamentalist religion poses far greater problems than people who want to enjoy the freedom and liberty our society promotes and generally moves toward, and which religions in the form of the Islam and Christian faith frequently seem to spend extreme efforts to meddle against.
We`re all equal
I love Card's books, I think most people do. The reason I'm going to see this movie, not only because it's my favorite movie, but because there were no anti-gay sentiments in his books. If anything he's shown tolerance in his book. I remember reading one part in the Mithermages saga where the main character expressed his view on homosexuality as not for him, but it didn't bother him. Therefore I don't feel obligated to boycott his books or movies. I'm still excited to see it in theaters.
Almost a third of my friends are gay/lesbian, and even a few of my family members. I don't tolerate people being anti-gay in my presence, but everyone's entitled to their opinions. I don't like Card's view on the subject, but there will always be people like him, he's no different than those other people. As long as he keeps it out of his books, I can keep enjoying them.
I agree with the conceptual basis for your statement, but I disagree with your overall point. Well, specifically I agree with you that I am against the existence of civil unions.
However, I am also against the existence of marriage as a state-regulated legal construct for anyone.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
Exactly. Having the government involved in defining this most intimate of interpersonal relationships is a horrible idea. If labels really matter to people, then let them choose a religious/group affiliation that will give them a ceremony/label for their relationship. However, none of these labels should carry the force of law. You could therefore get your heterosexual-only marriage at the Catholic church, or your het/homo marriage at an Episcopalian church.
In case you were wondering if this is an instance of Poe's Law: I practice what I advocate. My partner and I decided we wished to have a lifelong exclusive commitment but we did not want the government to define our relationship for us. So, we setup health care powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, wills, etc, and then gave each other a ring.
Oh, and we're heterosexuals living in a non-common-law marriage state. Not that it matters.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
I agree with you: let's not allow gay marriage under law—in fact, let's not allow any legal concept of marriage at all. Sounds like you would be fine with that, because no one will be able to force your chosen religion to violate its tenets to label any nonadherents as "married". And if some people are really desperate for the government to define the parameters of their relationship for them, then I suppose that allowing the legal concept of civil unions might be an option (for both gays and straights).
But no marriage under law.
Somehow I find it strange that people who have not boycotted music done by Michael "let's cuddle young boys" Jackson are asking to boycott movie done based on book written by guy who doesn't like homosexuals. Despite the OSC bigotry, he was right that these days being homophobic seems to be a bigger moral crime than being a pedophile.
Political correctness becomes ultimate censorship power. Gender, religion, race, sexuality - somebody will shout 'hate speech' and you will get banned/fired/shunned. It is heresy of XXI century - in middle ages you could get burned for saying bad things about God, today you will get 'burned' for hate speech against other people. And same way as in medieval times people were centering their lives around pretending to follow Church, today people are putting mask to match political correctness expectations...
I'm going to see the movie. I like some of Michael Jackson songs. Artist does not 'taint' the work of art. Boycott is just an ultimate form of bullying by stronger group.
There you go, men and women. Not men and men or women and women.
Face it, up until recently, all Western cultures prohibited gay marriage, and many even prohibited homosexuality. This idea that gay marriage is a right is very new.
The book is good - one of the best scifi out there. You can bet anything i will be watching the movie. I could not possibly care less about the authors views one way or other. The story is awesome, thats about all that matters here.
Most people, including those that have studied the effects, wouldn't get behind that statement.
The question of whether homosexual marriage provides the same social benefits is unknown, but should be reasonably expected, assuming that the relevant aspects of heterosexual marriage holds true for homosexual marriage. What those are, no one has really defined, but I suspect love and monogamy are strong factors. It doesn't seem like homosexual marriage precludes those.
A family member of mine recently got married using the Persian wedding ceremony, and that historically was for everybody. Of course, that's from a country that currently executes homosexuals.
Card's freedom of expression doesn't force me to go see his movie.
Your freedom of speech doesn't keep me from calling you an asshole.
If you consider that the same thing as "suppression of alternative opinions", then you're advocating a worse sort of thought-police nanny-state than any Democrat.
Also, how is being a bigot for a long time more respectable than being a bigot for a short time?
I'm not clear. Is the claim "Card is a homophobe" not correct?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation. There aren't people who find single partners unattractive and can't form relationships with them in the same way that gays find people of the opposite sex unattractive and can't form relationships with them.
Saying "a polygamist can still marry one person" is different from saying "a gay person can still marry someone of the opposite sex" because the polygamist *would* want to marry one person, it's just that that's only a subset of the marriages he'd actually want.
My apologies. You're right, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament, which my particular vein of Christianity believes is the case. If they're one and the same, then Christ (under the name Jehovah/Yahweh in the OT) does go back to the beginning of the Bible (which is pretty dang close to the beginning of "recorded history") and predates it.
Also, marriage is not a right for anyone. Campaigning for gay marriage is not a "crusade for equal rights" in any sense of the scale of what racial minorities have gone through. Having said that, I will say that there should be no laws against anyone getting married, as marriage is more of a personal/spiritual function than a state function. Having said that, I will even say that I advocate that the State just go on and get the fuck out of everyone's personal lives completely.
Now, regardless of any of the above, including what I or anyone else have said, I think the movie is going to be awesome and I look forward to it. I don't let politics enter my personal entertainment preferences. If I did then I couldn't listen to Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, or Audioslave anymore - they are all too happy with Obama's bullshit.
Tolerance means that they don't try to change you, or force you to their point of view.
I argue that millions of OSC's lobbying dollars amount to an attempt to force his point of view.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
we watch movies because they are entertainment. when i go to a movie theater or look up what movies i want to watch, the political orientation of the producer or the author or some actor is totally irrelevant to me. im not going to not watch a good movie because i dont agree with someone who was part of its production
1) Are you planning on boycotting the movie, but have already bought and read the book? Then it's too late, you enriched him. While I don't know the details of his ownership stake in the movie, typically ip holders are paid a flat fee for the movie script. He also likely got some salary/compensation for his work as a producer, although he's far down the producer list so he's not doing the heavy lifting. So boycotting it most likely will not stop him from earning money for his work.
2) Do the actors such as Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, and Abigail Breslin support anti-gay policies? I suspect not; Butterfield and Breslin are a bit too young to be too involved in Politics, and Ford is a left leaning centrist. What about Gavin Hood, the director and screenwriter? Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the producers? What about the good people at Lionsgate? All of those folks are just trying to produce a movie of a well loved book. Do they deserve to be punished for Card's politics?
This boycott is a more or less emotional response with strong collatoral damage that mostly does not achieve what those supporting the boycott want it to achieve. Card is still wealthy, and will remain so. He's already been paid for the movie. He's not likely to make another movie again from his material, as none of his other works have the appeal of Ender's Game. Frankly, this just won't accomplish anything.
This pro-homosexual marriage summary is entirely fundamentalist in its approach: there is only one authority; there is only one correct point of view; dissent is forbidden; anyone who disagrees is a sinner (against society), and deserves to be shunned.
Such rigidness of thought richly deserves to be mocked.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I only got one chapter into Ender's Game before I learned what an a-hole Card is.
To the barbeque! And *never* to this movie.
Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit?
An interesting, if deeply flawed example. For one, this only matters if al-Qaeda would receive financial compensation for the cure; the most probable result in this case would be that their intellectual property claims would be denied, or if accepted their assets seized to be paid to those they have wronged.
But ignoring that, I'm kind of shocked by the conclusion you draw in parallel to that example.
Granted, this is only a work of entertainment, but his pleadings for tolerance are not dissimilar from this theme; We are being asked to set aside our morality in exchange for some good or service.
Wait. So are you saying that if al-Qaeda did hold the keys to a cure for cancer, you wouldn't take it? I mean, roughly 40% of Americans will get cancer at some point in their life, and roughly 20% will die of it. The harm done by al-Qaeda in pursuit of their unpopular Islamic caliphate pales compared to the good that could solve. I mean, world-wide, we're talking about the lives of over a billion people that you'd rather see die than see a bunch of terrorists get some money and prestige.
Man, this is a terrible analogy. I hope.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
This is a known tactic. He can say anything he wants, as long as it serves what he perceives as serving a higher purpose. Look up "lying for the lord". See also Mittens Romney.
I can tolerate him, but I don't ever have to give him money or listen to him again. I'm not asking that he be jailed for his treason. That's pretty tolerant.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
They had that in Battlestar Galactica... Between 3-4 males and females.
Or the Alien Doctor Flox from Enterprise.
I give it two years. Three at the outside.
Shit, we already had such a nutbar as Attorney General of the United States. The results weren't as overt as people imagine, but there were consequences. It will be the same again, only more so, with a mature (expanded!) NSA surveillance state to work with.
I notice Nehemiah Scudder was already mentioned on Slashdot this week. I'm mentioning him again. He's coming. I don't have a lot of hope that the moderate majority can prevent it.
Personally, I don't care what he said. I read a book, not the author's comments. Books & Movies are entertainment. I read Game of Thrones without knowing anything about the author. I still know nothing about him. I read Ender's Game and liked it. The only aspect of Orson Scott Card that I care about is that he is a good author. The movie looks awesome so far and that's all I care about. I don't care whether or not Card believes in Pastafarianism or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't let his personal views seep into his books, so I don't care what he believes. (In terms of determining whether or not to read his books.)
Traditional marriage, gay marriage, consensual polygamy, man/beast marriage - who cares. Let people have whatever relationships they want with each other. The government shouldn't be involved at all. The only relationships that the government should have any recognition and benefits toward are the kind that is committed to creating children and/or raising children to adulthood in a stable and healthy environment to ensure that the future population of whatever nation the government governs is a healthy, productive one. These legally recognized relationships should only be enterable at the point a child is born or adopted. These legally recognized relationships should have severe financial penalties for breaking before the children are raised to adulthood baring poor behavior of the adults involved in the relationship (violence, promiscuity, other serious destabilizing family environment destabilization). These legally recognized relationships should only be legally binding until the children are raised to adulthood, at which point the legal benefits are terminated.
So have our girlfriends. ;-) ;-)
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Card is half right, the government should not be marrying anyone -- straight or gay. The traditional marriage folks are correct in the sense that marriage is historically a religious institution to a large degree. Government should not perform marriages due to the concept of separation of church and state. What government should do is perform civil unions, straight or gay, and these civil unions should embody *all* legal rights and privileges. Members of the clergy should also be allowed to perform these civil unions, the civil union being implicitly part of a clerical marriage ceremony. However the marriage itself only conveys church rights and privileges, all the civil stuff comes from the implicit civil union. Now regarding gay marriage, that is now a church issue. If its OK with church doctrine its a go, if not its a no go.
Everyone has the same civil rights. Every church if free to interpret marriage according to their culture.
Sadly this would deprive both sides of a favorite political wedge issue.
Heinlein, in his adult (not teen) later books assumed widespread acceptance of homosexuality and plural marriage.
At least Lazarus Long's giant freakin' harems of women following him seemed like a plural marriage.
For explicit discussions of plural marriage from Heinlein, see his Hugo winning The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Well, I'm going to vote with my dollars that I think voting against this movie is not a net good.
And you should. That's the point. You're voting with your dollars because you want to offset the other people voting with their dollars that disagree.
I am capable of enjoying products made by people that I disagree with, and don't want to discourage them from producing more.
Personal opinions vary. For some, however good the end product is, it's not justification for everything the producer does/believes. Why would I give my money to someone I disagree with. It's just a movie.
To be clear, I never read the books. I don't have any intention of seeing the movie for that reason. Had I been a big fan, I probably would go see it. The issue doesn't effect me personally, and it's not a topic I champion. I've just never understood why people have a problem with boycotts. If I don't like Wal-Mart's practices why on earth would I give them money? If I don't like Orson Scott Card, why would I give him money?
Besides, this is America. We're allowed to believe in any crazy thing we want.
The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and
religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging
from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its
yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the
world put together.
-- Sir Peter Medawar
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
when you take such a strong moral stance as Card has, you need to be aware of the repercussions. In this day and age, anybody who sends messages of any form of oppression and/or restriction which makes a person less than an other, clearly, is looking for trouble.
" I guess he didn't see this film and the box-office importance of wide appeal coming, did he?"
Guess what? Majority of the public are not crazy-gay-rights advocates but a normal middle-of-the-road Americans. They could care less of what you think.
When I read the headline my exact thought was "Wow is the movie really that bad?". Totally thought Card was pleading for his fans to give the movie a chance despite a (predictably) botched job.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
He started with that earlier than you think. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress featured plural marriage front and center, and it was published in 1966. Not merely polygyny, either. (In fact, specifically not that option). Polyandry, yes. Something he called a "line marriage". (Not sure if he made that name up or not.) And others. The book explores societal reactions to a radical imbalance in numbers between the sexes. A theme we may see played out here on Earth, if things continue the way they have been in China. The way China has been going, they're going to have to legalize polyandry.
...that none of the people arguing that we should see the movie make the case that in supporting Orson Scott Card (who vehemently opposes gay marriage) we would also be supporting Harrison Ford, who supports them.
Yes there are people who took the whole "tolerance" thing to an illogical, even detrimental extreme. Some of them ran PBS, for a while. I've noticed that's been walked back quite a bit. Sesame Street isn't quite so insane about preaching outright acceptance of everything.
As a liberal, I don't give Muslims any extra credit vs (white) evangelicals. The fact that their gods have different names doesn't make any difference. They're both dangerous, and for the same reasons.
"I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy."
If there is, I've never heard it, and I've been part of the poly community for almost 20 years. But, there IS another set of terms, so long as we are creating a glossary ;-), that is applicable:
Triad - three people of any mix of genders, all in a relationship with each other.
V - three people of any mix of genders, where two of them are in relationships with the third, but not with one another.
(I don't mean to generalize - I'm sure there are people in perfectly honorable, up-front Vs - but in my experience, the V is frequently what happens when one part of a couple cheats and then convinces the other part that they're really doing some high-minded new-age thing, instead - talking them into staying and being miserable, at least for a while.)
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
He's gone a bit beyond just saying that he thinks society is doomed if it accepts homosexuals. He's wrong, of course, but that's not something to get in a lather over. He's gone well beyond that and thinks its also perfectly justified to call for the violent overthrow of the US Government if it makes the mistake of not keeping gay marriage illegal. Yes, you heard that right, gay marriage is apparently a moral issue worthy of wholesale civil war.
Of course, now that gay marriage IS legal (at least in places), he's saying (due to his upcoming movie) that we should just let bygones be bygones and let the whole thing slide. (Maybe he wants to delay the revolution until after his movie comes out.)
I can freely admit that OSC is a bigot. I've also heard some choice words about him from a friend who supposedly met him in person at a book signing. However Ender's Game is one of the most popular Sci Fi novels of all time and the Ender series overall is pretty good. Also, I don't see any reflection of OSC's personal prejudice in his novels. The fact that he is intolerant has nothing to do with the success and authoring of his sci fi novels. If you liked reading Ender's Game, see the movie. I plan to. I only hope the screen adaption is good.
Then the child goes into a home, and probably eventually into the military
So you're saying that military service is for messed-up youths who were raised in foster homes?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
No, by "bigot" we mean the very dictionary definition of the word:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
That describes pretty much everyone I have ever met. The only differences are the actual opinions... As evidence I submit: Washington DC. The entire population meets this definition, the only thing that changes are the D or the R.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Quoth: "As hollywood used to say, 'If you don't like it you know where the knob is'."
Presumably that was half of the statement, and the second half was, "and you're looking at him"?
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, twenty years ago the position you now find so offensive was the standard position for almost all Americans.
Or, restated for an era not long gone by:
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, sixty years ago hating Jews was the standard position for almost all Germans.
Or farther back:
And, by the way, whether you like it or not, 150 years ago approving of owning slaves was the standard position for almost all Americans.
Same shit, different day. Just because the majority did it, doesn't make it right.
And what's with this obsession with abortion lately... It's popped up even in Snowden threads. It's bizarre.
And what's with this obsession with abortion lately... It's popped up even in Snowden threads. It's bizarre.
The right to life debate stays on the front burner because it involves innocent people being killed everyday (late term babies). Happy to clear that up for you.
Ow. You make me feel dense.
"By denying someone the right to a federally approved marriage of their preference, you're treating them as less than human." I've seen variations this argument repeatedly and that weakness never occurred to me. Whether you agree or disagree, I think you should consider the legitimacy of any argument worth discussing... and I totally missed that insight.
You really won't win an argument with bigots. They think their positions is RIGHT, as in absolutely right. As such they think everyone has to support it, or those people are wrong. So ya, they feel like you have to give them money, have to let them do as they wish, or you are the problem.
So just ignore them.
The fallacy he employs here â" that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others â" is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies
Except that here, Card is the one being bullied. I find such bigoted remarks as the above to be remarkably hypocritical.
If I were to liken you to "cowards and bullies" merely because of your beliefs, ethnicity, etc, would that not be hate speech as it is nebulously defined? Well, that's what just happened here. If interval1066 genuinely wishes to curb hate speech, he can start with his own.
My first thought was that OSC was pleading for die-hards to give the movie a chance...because the trailer was so terrible. No...not going to tolerate a crappy adaptation of a beloved childhood book...!
That's bullshit. Technically, you're right, since it wasn't a right they ever had, the campaign wasn't to strip the rights.
But, that's overly pedantic.Ultimately, people don't get married solely because they want to be married, there's a ton of rights that are granted to go along with that.
As for the 7 wives thing, why is it that bigots keep trotting that out? That, bestiality and pedophilia will never be legalized because there are serious problems with it. Polygamy and Polygny lead to people being unable to get a spouse because all of a sudden you need only a fraction of the partners you needed to to fill the need for women or men, while the remaining men and women are unable to marry.
In the cast of bestiality and pedophilia, there's no ability of the animals and children to engage in informed consent.
Completely different from consenting adults getting married.
There's a better argument against the "bestiality and polygamy will be next" crowd, and that is that unlike homosexuality, no statistically significant percentage of the population is born with an urge to exclusively desire sex with animals or multiple human partners. It's been pretty clear for years that most homosexuals are indeed born that way, that it is a genetic trait rather than a learned behavior. AFAIK nobody is born with a genetic predisposition to molest animals, and while there are many men who would probably prefer to have more than one wife if they could, most are not actively repulsed at the thought of living with just one. Homosexuality should be accommodated equally by the law simply because failure to do so penalizes a significant percentage of the population for something that is completely beyond their control. This is obviously not the case with other types of sexual deviancy, which either affect a vanishingly small number of people, or involve behavior that is non-consensual by its very nature (e.g. pedophilia). Homosexuality is different in that it is affects large numbers of people, involves only consenting adults, and is primarily a condition that one is born with and can't change. That should be the key test, IMO. If a sexual behavior meets these criteria and otherwise causes no harm, then those affected should not be legally discriminated against. And if they want to marry each other, why not let them, since it really doesn't affect the rest of us in any meaningful way.
I'm from southern Utah. I get a reminded of polygamy every weekend at Walmart. (:
THL phish sticks
Hell, we have enough problems keeping two people together in a stable configuration. Adding a third person to the mixes triples the number of relationships to maintain and keep stable.
The regular masses would tell you that you are correct, however, for anyone who has thoughroughly read the Bible, you will find it is indeed full of all kinds of sci-fi! Take a look at The Skeptic's Bible for all kinds of awesome linkage pointing to everything from multiple Gods, giants, UFO's, and all sorts of other stuff. Besides those little known gems though, common themes are giant man eating fish (Job), worldwide floods, people rising from the dead, and have you even read Revelations? It's ALL sci-fi!!!!!
Luckily? LUCKILY??? You just stated that you do not support his views and that you will not finacially support them now. I am in this camp along with you. It is ok to have bought his books before you knew, it happens to all of us. But now that you do know, you wish you didn't know cause as a kid you really did like it and didn't have a conundrum? If you truly feel that this guy is scum, then you should have said "Regretably I didn't have the conundrum" or sadly or a myriad of other words to choose from but you picked luckily. There is no negative connotations associated with luckily so when you say that you imply that ignorance is bliss and if you didn't find this out today, you'd still happily consume. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you picked the wrong word in that statement and are not simply paying lip service to a cause you don't truly care about. If you don't care about it that is fine. Say what you mean Sir!
Marriage can't predate recorded history. Or at least, you can't prove it does, which makes such an assertion meaningless.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Sounds to me like our dollars weren't wasted either. He seems more educated on social issues than you. He is educated in the spirit of the law & the social issues that are relevent to his time. Usually when it is convienient to your side, you'll always go with the spirit of the law and commend the DoJ for agreeing. But when it doesn't suit you? Oh no you switch to a technical reading of document. Which one is it? Oh yeah, whichever one makes you look good and get what you want! Having cake and eating it too. I frown on your shenanigans.
Are you claiming that the DoI isn't "the constitution or the papers by the framers supporting it."? Thomas Jefferson wrote the damned thing! He had nothing to do with the Constitution? He didn't support it? The DoI wasn't the initial thrust into us becoming the nation that we are? PREPOSTEROUS! Yeah it isn't law, but when your side sees fit, you will scream Federalist Papers this, Thomas Paine that, Don't Tread On Me. But when we do it? Well fuck us, that shit doesn't matter cause only the Constitution is right. I take offense to that and call you out right here. You have not in anyway been able to refute his statements nor furthered your own so you've resorted to Appeals of Ignorance and Ad Hominem. When all you got left is to call someone stupid, YOU. HAVE. LOST.
It's an obvious troll, don't get too worked up about it.
And war doesn't? Yet it falls off the front burner all the time. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
When you come up with a way to save all these babies you care so desperately about that doesn't sound like slavery for women, then we'll talk. No, that's not hyperbole. Being forced to bear a child against their will is precisely what happened to slaves.
You sound like someone who may have some insight into a little thought experiment I've been having this thread. I did not have a religious service for my marriage because I am not religious. I just went, got the cert, and had the justice sign it. Took 10 minutes from start to finish. Not even a kiss the bride- romantic I know :D You have multiple persons you love and care about but the gov won't recognize those. So for people that can't get married or hate the dogma surounded by it, why not set up a corporation(which is the closest to a family contract we have right now)? The corp has the assets, the liability, has to provide all the insurance for the "workers" and whatnot. The corp can provide for whatever the bigots won't allow and they get better tax benefits than just plain old married people! If you should want to get divorced, you simply dissolve the corp and divvy up the liquidated assets. Has anyone done this? I think it would be a spectacular way to poke "the Man" in the eye for being such assholes and it is totally legal, 100% Whadda ya think?
I commend you for recognizing the moral depravity of warfare in general, but I can't agree that a few months of inconvenience justifies killing an innocent human being.
Two words: maternal mortality. Look it up sometime. Pregnancy is not merely inconvenience.
This infers that "gay rights are civil rights" is an unquestionable corollary/fact to build arguments off of.
No, that's like saying "interracial rights are civil rights".... which is badly butchering the issue/description.
It's the that government should not (and cannot) discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. If the government issues driver's licenses the law cannot examine the applicant's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. If the government issues marriage licenses, then it's impossible to write a valid law excluding gay marriage for the exact same reason it's impossible to write a valid law that excludes interracial marriage. That's because there's no way fr the law to implement such discrimination other than explicitly on the basis of the race/religion/gender of the applicants.
Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
Not if Christ was the same god/person/deity as the god of the Old Testament
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It was adopted in 1948, a time when homosexual conduct itself was illegal in most Western countries.Alan Turing was convicted of homosexual activity four years after this.
I get why you're saying that, but that word still applies to other mixes of polygamists, too, aside from the one the poster above was asking about. The difference between polygamy and polyamory is that the first applies to marriage and the second applies to love - and hopefully for most people those go together just like the opening to 'Married With Children' said. ;-)
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
I think that that is so brilliant.... that I thought of it years ago. ;-) But, there's actually an even better option if you're not picky about religion: Form a pagan coven, file all of the paperwork necessary to make it legal, and keep shared resources in the coven's name. The reason this is (was? Not sure if some of President Obama's directives on Medicaid payouts have made this irrelevant) superior is that there are (were? Honestly need to look back into this, I guess) certain circumstances where organizations such as hospitals would not recognize a gay or poly spouse as a family member - BUT, in a coven, every member is clergy, and they can't deny access to your clergy. :-D
I would really like to see government "marriage" (not church Marriage, churches can do what they want regarding religious ceremonies) replaced with a Family Contract, someday. Forget about sex - why SHOULDN'T an elderly brother and sister who have both had their spouses precede them be able to give one another the same financial security as partners in a married couple give one another, just as one example?
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Or, begin using war or other life-threatening large scale projects to reduce their male population. I'll take the poly, thanks.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
The vast majority of abortions are not about maternal mortality. In fact, it's very, very rare that aborting a baby is medically indicated to save the life of the mother. So you're OK with banning abortion except to save the life of the mother? That sounds good to me, let's do it. We'll go ahead and schedule a two person march on Washington tomorrow.
When you come up with a way to save all these babies you care so desperately about that doesn't sound like slavery for women, then we'll talk. No, that's not hyperbole. Being forced to bear a child against their will is precisely what happened to slaves.
The concept of disallowing abortion as slavery for women is kind of interesting, and I've been thinking about it some more. So who would be the slave owner in this case? Presumably the baby? Gotta say they are the cutest little slave drivers I've ever seen, and they really need to work on their intimidation skills.
If you say that the government would be the slave owner by banning late term abortion, then I guess all of us are slaves of the government, because the government bans murder as a general rule. For example, I'm forced to not kill my kids by the government. Waaaaah, I'm a slave!!! (Actually, just kidding of course; I love my kids.)
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
Polyamorous would probably work, but is not limited to a group that are all associated with each other in a single social contract.
A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.
Yeah, the cultures surrounding the OT style of marriage (polygamy, man pretty much owns everything, etc.) are long gone, so many of the mores addressed in the OT's first five books (the Pentatauch, or Torah) seem a little crazy in modern society.
"Leviticus says this" arguments, but the short, short version is that the first five books of the OT are the Law of Moses, and a lot of that (handed down by "God" - i.e. Jesus around 1300-1400 BC) was "fulfilled" (i.e. thrown out and/or clarified) by Jesus (as a mortal man) in the NT. Why he did that is a long, unrelated history lesson - but that doesn't mean that his stance on morality changed during that time.
Again, people who throw that "But Leviticus says..." argument frankly don't know the history, meaning or purpose behind those parts of the Bible. They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
I disagree with the specific beliefs of OSC. However, I do not feel that he is evil, or even causing evil. I feel that he is acting on genuine beliefs that he holds. The only way to change the mind or belief system if an individual is through logical and peaceful discourse. Additionally, it seems to me that a boycott, although personally satisfying, and perhaps capable of accomplishing some financial punishment to OSC, will also harm various others through no fault of their own. On another point, I feel that a compromise solution may be the best way out of this quagmire. I support removing the ability of the government to conduct marriage. By this, I mean that the government would not issue a 'marriage' license. Rather a group of adults who wish to live together as a family unit would register for a 'civil union' license. This would grant the members thereof the various benefits, rights, and conveniences that marriages grant in the secular realm. Marriage would be defined exactly as a religious ritual wholly out of the realm of government. Although this really amounts to wordplay, I feel that it alleviates much of the discomfort and fears of the religious opponents, while granting the ability of forming a family to any group, who can still conduct a marriage ceremony within whatever religious structure is mutually compatible with them. I would like to make a few side points over a few common misconceptions on this subject, the commonality of which irks me. With regard to religions that are inherently 'anti-gay' (I will speak of the Jewish religion with which I am familiar, at least much of it is applicable to the other Abrahamic religions), I must make several points: -Having homosexual desires, etc. is not inherently a sin. The thing which is forbidden is specifically the sexual act itself. -That said, although this is singled out as a 'To'Aivah' -an abomination- from all other sexual sins, it is not correct to focus and disparage those who commit this over ANY other sin, the same level of outrage should be felt against the one who embarrasses his fellow and the one who violates Shabbas- it is wrong to hyper-focus on one sin above all others. -With regard to the argument that mandating any kind of civil union for homosexuals would 'encourage' them, I feel that this is fallacious. -The annoyingly common idea that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is completely wrong- it is simply not a valid argument, nor is its reverse. We see it in nature everywhere - it is not unnatural. It is considered prohibited because God said that it is -no more, no less-. It's commonality among all creation implies NOTHING - it is irrelevant to this argument. -From that point, even if homosexual desires are built in at the genetic level, the religion still demands that that desire be conquered and ignored by those who possess it - just because one wants to does not make it permitted.
You might just draw your line somewhere between advocating homophobia and child labor, but some of us prefer to draw it before advocating homophobia.
Think about it: If a businessman uses the profits he derives from his business to actively work to deny another person his legal rights, that other person is certainly justified in refusing to contribute to that businessman's source of revenue. If the businessman's profits enable him to pursue activities that a second person finds repulsive, that second person is justified in refusing to purchase that businessman's products and to urge others to do the same, in order to weaken the businessman's ability to pursue those repulsive activities.
Card doesn't merely have a "different opinion." He used his celebrity and his financial resources to support legal initiatives that would strip gays of existing legal rights, deny them new rights rooted in the doctrine of equal protection, and to promote anti-gay hate groups and lobbyists that justify their agendas with press releases that describe gay people as "sh*t-eating, child-molesting deviants." Screw him and screw you too if you think it's a good idea to enable this guy because he "deserves tolerance." He's consciously acted to make himself a high-profile enemy of gay people and, unlike Disney or Henry Ford, supporting his professional work can still help him hurt real people today.
And the fact that he's now whining about "tolerance" is hypcritical to the point of being sickening. How would he have responded two years ago if a gay person had asked him for to cease his anti-gay activities out of "tolerance" of gay people's "sh*t-eating"? When Card issues a credible apology and promise to stop participating in activities that injure gay people, then I'd consider rethinking my position. But he went out of his way *not* to make such statements in EW, instead justifying his call for gay support with idiotic claims that "gays have already won; there is no more issue." Holy jumpin jeezus, if you're gonna try to BS me, at least have enough respect for my intelligence to come up with a rationalization not aimed at cretins.
Unfortunately, based on some of the opinions posted here, it looks like we don't have to worry about a shortage of rationalizations. Or cretins.
This won't stop anyone who was planning on seeing the movie from going. The threatened boycott is a snoozer. I'll be going, and I think his positions are correct. Don't care even a little bit if that displeases anyone. I have the right to disapprove of their activity, just as they have the right to disapprove of mine.
I'm pro marriage equality, but I really don't care what Card's politics are except that I don't agree with him. Most of my heroes in the creative arts had something I disagreed with/just didn't like. A lot of composers were total loons, but I love their music. He's an author and it's a good story. I'll probably go see the movie, and I'll probably like it.
Child labor- depending on some variables, children are sometimes better off doing child labor than starving. Slave labor I would be willing to boycott, voluntary labor (including where the parent is making the call instead of the child doing the work) is a much more gray area for me, and I'd want a better understanding of a given situation than that children were involved in the manufacture of a product to make a call there.
Diamonds- personally, I believe that synthetic are just as good as dug-from-the-ground, so stating that I am boycotting diamonds would be rather misleading.
Incidentally, I find it more offensive to demonize people (i.e. calling them homophobic because they disagree with you on whether the English language needs to be changed by government fiat), than anything I've seen Card say in the snippets I've seen people quote from him on the subject.
Actually, a student receiving GI Bill benefits has less need for a spouse than a student who isn't receiving GI Bill benefits.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
sure, I can understand not buying Card's books or wanting to give him any money at all, But, what about the other people involved in the movie, who may or may not share his same beliefs, by boycotting the movie you also affect them as well and they had nothing to do with Card's opinions or actions. If you want to boycott Card, don't buy his books. But boycotting the movie that is simply based on a novel he wrote will affect many more people, some of who may even support the cause Card is against. So now by boycotting the movie you may also be affecting your own cause. Just food for thought.
Consider that Richard Wagner's music was pretty much anthems for the 3rd reich and his position with regard to the Jews was confused at best. The Israelis recently lifted the bans on his works for their philharmonic. I think artists need a little more slack. 'Ender's Game' is good work, maybe not 'Der Ring des Nibelungen' but I'll see it regardless. I'm a fan of his writing not his politics.
I'd be all for tolerance if it just came out that he didn't "believe" in gay marriage (whatever that's supposed to mean), but when you campaign for something people are allowed to "campaign" against it. He needs to man up and understand that when you try to legislate people against their will, they won't like you. And if he wants tolerance, he should try some tolerance first and let people live their lives.
Fascinating. I shall look into this further. Thanks for a most insightful post!
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
Fun at parties?
Sorry to say, but this boycott is without merit. Marriage is not a right. Its a religious institution that corrupt politicians unconstitutionally applied tax breaks and additional rights to when they shouldn't have. Their greed in wanting votes and the greed of Americans wanting more than they deserved is the only thing that has kept this issue alive. Anyone claiming that gays should have the right to marry are not fighting the right fight. They are simply fighting to allow another group of people to have unconstitutional advantages over their fellow citizens.The laws will always be geared to pander to whoever brings in the most votes at the time the laws are created. The simple response should have been civil unions. Not just for gay and lesbian couples but all couples. A Christian couple wants tax breaks too but has a marriage certificate? So what, go to the courthouse and get your civil union license. Strike the term marriage out of every law and replace it with civil union. Problem solved and no one would have a right to complain. But that would be way too easy and wouldn't allow our politicians to create division among the citizens so that the assholes running the show could paint themselves as fighting for the people and keep the votes coming in.
They're just trying to blow off doctrine A in the OT (homosexuality, fornication, adultery, etc.) because doctrine B (don't eat shellfish, etc.) is no longer relevant. That logic isn't sustainable.
You've flipping the logic backwards.
Of course "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument.
The entire point of raising "Leviticus says [shellfish]" is to smack someone over the head with the fact that "Leviticus says..." is an unsustainable argument. If someone wants to cite Old Testament Law as an argument, they need something better than "I personally enjoy shellfish and I personally do not enjoy homosexuality" as a basis for claiming one is a valid God's Law and the other is a "no longer relevant" God's Law.
Even if we take the Bible as the undisputed word of God, we still have the Old Testament was fulfilled/thrown_out/clarified/whatever_you_want_to_call_it by Jesus. Therefore "Leviticus says [homosexuality]" is an unsustainable argument. Saying "Leviticus says [shellfish]" does not positively establish that homosexuality is fine and dandy, but it does positively refute any "Leviticus says..." argument that homosexuality is any worse than eating shellfish or wearing a poly-cotton mixed fiber T-shit.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If our decision to see a movie was influenced by the politics of actors, most of us right thinking people would never never see a movie. Liberals are once again demonstrating their hypocracy on tolerance.
Nope, I'm not OK with banning any abortions, specifically because abortions to save the life of the mother must be legal. If there are legitimate exceptions to a ban, there must be no ban, otherwise those exceptions will fail to be granted, because fanatics will see to it that getting an abortion at all is so difficult that it no longer happens.
"try as you might marriage, the institution, has always been between a man and woman"
Wrong. Only in the last few hundred years or so. It wasnt even a religious institution until recently
Ignorant ACs, who would have expected that?
Internal1066 wrote, "The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies," ...and the fallacy employed here is called ad hominem.
Nope, I'm not OK with banning any abortions, specifically because abortions to save the life of the mother must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any shootings, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any industrial pollution, specifically because personally exhaling carbon dioxide must be legal.
- Nope, I'm not OK with banning any sexual assault, specifically because consensual S&M must be legal.
Millions of murdered infants thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable approach to this issue.
Nope, I'm not OK with banning guns, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal.
Isn't that the argument?
So what's the difference? Someone dies there too.
Oh right. The difference is your precious manhood is assaulted if a woman decides to kill your potential offspring. That must be prevented at all costs. Slaver.
Rather late, so it probably won't get modded up.
Thought of a better idea. Gay/Lesbians are calling on the movie to be boycotted due to OSC's financial and active support of homophobic campaigns. Rather ironic (of OSC) considering the movie is about tolerance. Rather than suffering conscious dissonance or pangs of guilt etc, people who want to see the movie go see it with clothes calling for tolerance of gays and lesbians or anti-homophobia T-Shirts etc ... things like that. Try to make it a media / on-line thing and It might make OSC become more tolerant of gays/lesbians etc. Gays and Lesbians around the world could even turn it into a Gay/Lesbian event, that way the book/movie will always be associated with tolerance of gay/lesbians. Just my two cents.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Nope, I'm not OK with banning guns, specifically because shootings in self defense must be legal. Isn't that the argument? So what's the difference? Someone dies there too.
No, that is what is known as a reading comprehension fail. Maybe look again?
Oh right. The difference is your precious manhood is assaulted if a woman decides to kill your potential offspring. That must be prevented at all costs. Slaver.
Ha ha ha ha, I love hearing liberals whine. Pretty sure it's the natural vocalization of their species. "Waaaa, I can't kill my baby, so I'm being repressed!" (Of course I'm just being mean, I have liberal friends who engage in rational, adult debate, pretty much exactly like we are not doing.)
a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
Orgy.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Or has he always been an asshole? I loved his books as a kid but post-9/11 was the first time I was exposed to his politics and they struck me as counter to a lot of his themes. Anyway, no. Don't want to see Tom Cruise out of disgust with Scientology and its posterboys, but when it comes down to running an abusive cult that you ultimately still have to sign up for vs. actively persecuting people who have done you no harm, I'm gonna say OSC and anything that earns him a profit can go to Hell where they belong.