Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2013/02/24/ottawa-comic-book-gay-marriage-orson-scott-card-shoppe-boycott.html

I've known about him for decades - Marvel was publishing his work prior to this upcoming DC stint - but never read about him in detail and didn't know until now he was such a militant about this issue.

I mean, if you disprove of homosexuality and gay marriage, I don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion. But being in favour of criminalizing such behavior?! Trying to keep old laws on the books for it?? That crosses the line. The movie version of Ender's Game comes out this year; will there be boycotts then?

Who here can separate this issue from reading his work?

Originally posted by roughrider
I mean, if you disprove of homosexuality and gay marriage, I don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion. But being in favour of criminalizing such behavior?! Trying to keep old laws on the books for it?? That crosses the line.

Yea, and he doesn't just talk about it, he actively puts money towards it and has membership in organizations who push for them.


I don't buy anything he does, I don't want to support people who support abominable causes.

I don't understand. The store owner admits that he wouldn't be any better than Card were he to outright ban the sale of the comic on his shelves, but isn't this sort of boycott in itself a form censorship? In that case how is he any better than the homophobic Orson Card?

That has come up from the other side. And I don't remember any such talks of banning his work for Marvel Comics or from any of the book store chains that carry his work. Somehow this issue got re-ignited just because he's working on Superman?

I didn't think his work on Ultimate Iron Man was any improvement over the 616 version, either. Kind of needlessly complicated.

If you substitute the term Black or African American for homosexual in his stance, there's no way in hell he'd have a following outside the KKK.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I don't understand. The store owner admits that he wouldn't be any better than Card were he to outright ban the sale of the comic on his shelves, but isn't this sort of boycott in itself a form censorship? In that case how is he any better than the homophobic Orson Card?
You're comparing two unlike things. Orson wants to deny rights to a group of people.

The comic store owner doesn't.

Wow thanks for enlightening me.

That's why I'm here.

Interestingly enough, there are some branches of Christianity that would think Orson follows a cockamamie faith, being a Mormon. Wonder how he feels about that...

Is he opposing gay rights in the comics themselves?

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Is he opposing gay rights in the comics themselves?

No, in real life. He wants old laws that used to criminalize homosexual behaviour kept on the books.

He also said that if the US government passed gay marriage laws he would get guns and rebel against them and start a new civil war.

I hope it gets legalized then.

Curious to see whether he lasts as long as Dorner did.

You know that 99% of people who say stuff like that are all talk

Originally posted by roughrider


If you substitute the term Black or African American for homosexual in his stance, there's no way in hell he'd have a following outside the KKK.

As a black guy, I don't like when people do this. It's not really the same thing.

Damn and I go to this shop.

Originally posted by JayDaDon
As a black guy, I don't like when people do this. It's not really the same thing.
You're right, I'd argue that homosexuals have for much of history had it worse, and gay rights have never had the kind of momentum that black civil rights accrued in the 1960s.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I don't understand. The store owner admits that he wouldn't be any better than Card were he to outright ban the sale of the comic on his shelves, but isn't this sort of boycott in itself a form censorship? In that case how is he any better than the homophobic Orson Card?

No, this is a misunderstanding of what censorship is.

The store own is not obligated to carry someone's books, they always don't carry someone or other's books.

And heck, the store is still selling it, just special-orders only.


Boycotts are perfectly legal, non-censorship, vote with your wallet methods. The store owner is deciding not to buy his books in a very free market way (save, again, by individual request).

One can do boycotts for good causes or bad causes. In this case, it's a good reason- not supporting someone who openly advocates harrassing US citizens and denying them rights.



Originally posted by roughrider
That has come up from the other side. And I don't remember any such talks of banning his work for Marvel Comics or from any of the book store chains that carry his work. Somehow this issue got re-ignited just because he's working on Superman?

I didn't think his work on Ultimate Iron Man was any improvement over the 616 version, either. Kind of needlessly complicated.

If you substitute the term Black or African American for homosexual in his stance, there's no way in hell he'd have a following outside the KKK.


There was a little talk back then, but not a lot. It's partially that the country has come a long way in the 7 years since Ult Iron Man, and partially because, well, it's *Superman*. A champion of justice and equality. An alt-universe version of a character who even the main version of can be a jerk (and pre-movie too), vs a character who stands for the very opposite of what Card wants the real world to be like.


Originally posted by Endless Mike
You know that 99% of people who say stuff like that are all talk

He actually puts money into groups who try and push anti-gay laws.

Oh yea, one other difference between Ult IM and now- back then, he just said dumb offensive stuff, he actually joined the anti-gay organizations more recently.

Originally posted by JayDaDon
As a black guy, I don't like when people do this. It's not really the same thing.

I only use the example of how far gay acceptance attitudes still have to come. Racism still exists in some forms, but the worst of it burned out after the success of the 1960's civil rights movement.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're right, I'd argue that homosexuals have for much of history had it worse, and gay rights have never had the kind of momentum that black civil rights accrued in the 1960s.

You know what I mean. It's alot easier to avoid getting killed or having your rights taken away by laying low or not letting it out that you're gay, than being born black, something that can't be hidden or changed.

I wouldn't go trivializing slavery either buddy. Alot more than what's in the history books went on

Long story short- it's ok to boycott people who support bad causes, and it's ok if stores do so too.

Originally posted by JayDaDon
I wouldn't go trivializing slavery either buddy. Alot more than what's in the history books went on

Yeah man, just about every people has been enslaved at one point.

For some reason black people won't let it go.

WTF?

Originally posted by roughrider
No, in real life. He wants old laws that used to criminalize homosexual behaviour kept on the books. Poor guy then.

I'd read comics if Hitler wrote them if they were good.

Bet he'd have some Hickman level storytelling and planning.

Originally posted by JayDaDon
As a black guy, I don't like when people do this. It's not really the same thing.
There are parallels, which I think is what he was getting at.

Regardless, this isn't productive. If we get bogged down in a silly game of Oppression Olympics, it's hard to actually get change for anyone.

If there is an injustice, it should be addressed.
Originally posted by Q99
Long story short- it's ok to boycott people who support bad causes, and it's ok if stores do so too.
Exactly.

This whole "You're just oppressing the oppressor by calling him out on his bigotry! You're just as bad he is! dur" is just tiresome.

I seriously can't believe people still spout that nonsense.

Originally posted by StyleTime


There are parallels , which I think is what he was getting at.








Gay "Marriage" (Part 1)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.


In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have.
Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman.

There is no gay marriage to ban.

Originally posted by roughrider

If you substitute the term Black or African American for homosexual in his stance, there's no way have a following outside the KKK.


Gay "Marriage" (Part 2)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full/

Originally posted by Q99 He actually puts money into groups who try and push anti-gay laws.

I meant the part about rebelling against the government

Originally posted by StyleTime
There are parallels, which I think is what he was getting at.

Regardless, this isn't productive. If we get bogged down in a silly game of Oppression Olympics, it's hard to actually get change for anyone.

If there is an injustice, it should be addressed.

Exactly.

This whole "You're just oppressing the oppressor by calling him out on his bigotry! You're just as bad he is! dur" is just tiresome.

I seriously can't believe people still spout that nonsense.


It's as if they think the problem is words like 'intolerance' and 'bigotry', and not, y'know, the actual harm caused by intolerance and bigotry.



Originally posted by Endless Mike
I meant the part about rebelling against the government

Yea, that's pretty dumb.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Gay "Marriage" (Part 1)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of "discrimination" are being heard.

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have.
Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman.

There is no gay marriage to ban.

There are tons of things wrong with that(childless married couples), but I don't want derail this thread.

What you've posted is a homophobic spiel using semantics to rally support from bigots. It's logic is silly.

To put it into persepective, interracial marriage bans discriminated against an action, not people. Let's keep it illegal. dur

Yeah, do you see how dumb that sounds now? This is the parallel we were talking about. This isn't rocket science dude.

Also, I'd like to add a "lolThomas Sowell" to that.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Also, I'd like to add a "lolThomas Sowell" to that.


These "LoL"s and "Dur" emoticons may be a convincing argument to you; I'd like to hear why you think they apply in this case.

Are you going to go with the traditional approach of taking perhaps 1 or 2 things Sowell's said or done in an unrelated field and try to say he's ridiculous concerning anything and everything he's done in his life? Sowell is actually known for solid historical research where economics is concerned. What specific statements of his here do you believe you can refute?

And "semantics" are hardly the laughing matter you're making them out to be. If they were, why would gays be concerned with having their relationships be termed "marriage" specifically, as opposed to "relationship" or "civil unions"? What difference does a word or two make, right?

Originally posted by Q99
It's as if they think the problem is words like 'intolerance' and 'bigotry', and not, y'know, the actual harm caused by intolerance and bigotry.

Yeah, and it happens to so many groups. Feminists get accused of man-hating. Non-whites get accused of hating white people. Homosexuals get accused of heterophobia. Non-Christians get accused of Christian hating.

How dare marginalized groups ask to be treated as equals, amirite?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
These "LoL"s and "Dur" emoticons may be a convincing argument to you; I'd like to hear why you think they apply in this case.

Are you going to go with the traditional approach of taking perhaps 1 or 2 things Sowell's said or done in an unrelated field and try to say he's ridiculous concerning anything and everything he's done in his life? Sowell is actually known for solid historical research where economics is concerned. What specific statements of his here do you believe you can refute?

And "semantics" are hardly the laughing matter you're making them out to be. If they were, why would gays be concerned with having their relationships be termed "marriage" specifically, as opposed to "relationship" or "civil unions"? What difference does a word or two make, right?
The smilies are there mostly for humor.

No. I'm saying his views on LGBT rights are consistently hilarious. Seriously, the guy has actually used the age old "but then we have to let people marry their dogs!" defense. You admire his economic research. Cool. This isn't about economics though. The guy is pretty backwards when it comes to some things.

It isn't, at least not entirely, an issue of semantics. It's an issue of equality. "Relationships" and "civil unions" don't necessarily impart the same rights and protections, federal and state level, that a legally recognized marriage does. It's not surprising since segregation assumes that two or more groups are not equal, and must be separated. This is why the "equal" part of "seperate but equal" is rarely realized. In this country we often think of race based segregation, but this is another of the parallels I was talking about earlier.

I didn't start this thread to argue over who's more oppressed. I can't judge, being a member of the least oppressed group in the world - the White Anglo Saxon Christian Male, who's six foot & over, not obese and with a full head of hair( being Catholic, there was a time when I would have been oppressed in North America, but that's decades past.) Let's stay on topic; OSC and him putting his money where his anti-gay militancy is.

Originally posted by roughrider


didn't know until now he was such a militant about this issue ...

If you disprove of homosexuality and gay marriage ... you're entitled to your opinion. But being in favour of criminalizing such behavior?! Trying to keep old laws on the books for it??


What you're talking about is from an article more than 20 years old, according to your link:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1990 article for Sunstone Magazine, Card wrote an essay in which he said:

"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

While he did urge people to treat those who engage in homosexual acts with kindness, he wrote that the "goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly."
----------------------------------------------------------------------



There's no such thing as O. Scott Card being in favour of "criminalizing such behavior" back in 1990 when he wrote that, Rider -- it was already illegal.


Sodomy laws only got taken off the books in 2003 from the Lawrence Texas case, perhaps 10 years ago.

Card's article dates from more than 10 years before that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What you're talking about is from an article more than 20 years old, according to your link:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1990 article for Sunstone Magazine, Card wrote an essay in which he said:

"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

While he did urge people to treat those who engage in homosexual acts with kindness, he wrote that the "goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly."
----------------------------------------------------------------------



There's no such thing as O. Scott Card being in favour of "criminalizing such behavior" back in 1990 when he wrote that, Rider -- it was already illegal.


Sodomy laws only got taken off the books in 2003 from the Lawrence Texas case, perhaps 10 years ago.

Card's article dates from more than 10 years before that.

Has he changed his mind since then? - No. Has he publicity said he's for revolution if gay marriage is fully passed into law? - Yes.

Originally posted by roughrider
Has he changed his mind since then? - No. Has he publicity said he's for revolution if gay marriage is fully passed into law? - Yes.

Has he joined an organization that fights to prevent gay marriage from being legalized? Also yes.

I'd buy his stuff if it was any good. I read the original Ender's Game trilogy years ago and enjoyed it. But I've read a few of his other books over the years, including some later Ender stuff, but didn't really get into any of it. Haven't read anything of his for a while except maybe one of his comics.

Don't agree with his overtly militant views regarding gays. But anybody should be allowed to voice their approval or disapproval of gay marriage without fear of hate-filled reprisal. I don't get caught up in the whole 'marriage is a human right' misdirection. Marriage is a social convention that by necessity will always exclude some group or other, and I don't think the opinion of a gay outweighs the opinion of say a muslim, christian, or some other traditionalist in that area. I can accept that people have different views on what defines marriage as opposed to other unions. There is a lot of intolerance and bigotry on the extremes of both sides though.

Originally posted by basilisk

Don't agree with his overtly militant views regarding gays. But anybody should be allowed to voice their approval or disapproval of gay marriage without fear of hate-filled reprisal.

Mind, this isn't doing anything to hurt him- we're talking simply not supporting him.




Legally in the US, marriage is a right, affirmed by the supreme court. Furthermore, plenty of Christian churches and even iirc some Muslim ones have said they're willing to perform gay marriages, so it's actually discrimination against some religions. Why would we grant some Christian groups priority over others in deciding who they can marry?



In a completely disproportionate way where one side tries to trample on the others rights and the other mostly tries to be treated equal, sure ^^

Originally posted by basilisk
1.But anybody should be allowed to voice their approval or disapproval of gay marriage without fear of hate-filled reprisal.

2. I don't get caught up in the whole 'marriage is a human right' misdirection. Marriage is a social convention that by necessity will always exclude some group or other, and

3.I don't think the opinion of a gay outweighs the opinion of say a muslim, christian, or some other traditionalist in that area. I can accept that people have different views on what defines marriage as opposed to other unions.

4. There is a lot of intolerance and bigotry on the extremes of both sides though.
1. Of course he can voice an opinion. Others can voice their disagreement. They aren't actively infringing on his rights, as he wants to do the LGBT community.

2. Marriage, specifically the granting of marriage rights, is a state sanctioned institution. The state is supposed to uphold equality and be unbiased.

3. You're allowing the traditionalists' opinions to outweigh the others though. Legal gay marriage doesn't force everyone to have a gay marriage, or to even allow them at their church. It just means that those who choose to marry a same-sex partner, have the option to do so.

4. This whole faux-enlightened "both sides are bigots" is just that: fake. The traditionalists, as you put it, want to enforce their beliefs on another group through law. The LGBT rights advocates don't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean you or your church has to agree, recognize, or participate in it. Your post goes against this "equality of expression" you say you support.

Again, this isn't rocket science folks.

I agree that what you're saying isn't rocket science, but the bulk of it also isn't true. Even your president (and he's mine, too; I voted for the guy twice and might consider doing so a 3rd time if it weren't for term limitations), doesn't consider marriage a civil right, and he's on record for saying that.

He is (or at least was) decidely pro-traditional marriage, much as Orson Card. Did such make Barack Obama "anti-gay" all through these years till the present?



Barack Obama versus Alan Keyes, 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ
(6 min 5 sec)

The bulk of what I'm saying is false? Care to elaborate? The Supreme Court has actually called marriage a civil right. I wasn't just making things up.

Obama's position on gay marriage has evolved(his words), citing equality as his reason for supporting gay marriage. Surprise surprise. He's learned to separate his religion from from his policy.

To answer your last question...yes, it was homophobic sentiment. Not necessarily at the level of Card though.

Originally posted by StyleTime
1. Of course he can voice an opinion. Others can voice their disagreement. They aren't actively infringing on his rights, as he wants to do the LGBT community.

2. Marriage, specifically the granting of marriage rights, is a state sanctioned institution. The state is supposed to uphold equality and be unbiased.

3. You're allowing the traditionalists' opinions to outweigh the others though. Legal gay marriage doesn't force everyone to have a gay marriage, or to even allow them at their church. It just means that those who choose to marry a same-sex partner, have the option to do so.

4. This whole faux-enlightened "both sides are bigots" is just that: fake. The traditionalists, as you put it, want to enforce their beliefs on another group through law. The LGBT rights advocates don't. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean you or your church has to agree, recognize, or participate in it. Your post goes against this "equality of expression" you say you support.

Again, this isn't rocket science folks.

Who decides what is unbiased? Just the people with your particular views? You start with the assertion that legal recognition of same-sex unions with the term "marriage" is somehow a "right" and that anyone who disagrees is therefore "infringing" on it. But saying it's a right is an unqualified assertion to begin with. Where is it defined? Who has this particular "right" and who doesn't? For example do polygamists share this right to legal recognition by the state as marriage?

And yes, there are bigots on both sides. I said at the extremes, not "both sides are bigots".

Originally posted by basilisk
Who decides what is unbiased? Just the people with your particular views? You start with the assertion that legal recognition of same-sex unions with the term "marriage" is somehow a "right" and that anyone who disagrees is therefore "infringing" on it. But saying it's a right is an unqualified assertion to begin with. Where is it defined? Who has this particular "right" and who doesn't? For example do polygamists share this right to legal recognition by the state as marriage?

And yes, there are bigots on both sides. I said at the extremes, not "both sides are bigots".
It was established as a right by the United States Supreme Court. I didn't say disagreement is an infringement. I said banning it is. You're allowed to disagree with anything you want.

Yes, polygamists should have recognition too. That is a different topic though.

You're proving a fun conversationalist so far.

You've generally avoided direct attacks, largely dropped the facetious responses, and actually threw me for a bit of a loop by going with the "slippery slope" set-ups most people avoid, saying "Yes, Obama's attitude WAS homophobic before last year" and "Yes! Polygamists should have the right to marry too!".


Can't remember anybody responding like this before now.
Quite unexpected.
And you seem fairly genuine at this point.

So let's give you a true litmus test.


Let's give you someone who's considered a virtual demon in much of American society, the easy option of going after that person and not their specific argument and the chance to demonize me, too, for daring to introduce anything from said person into this thread.

Let's see if you take that easy route, as most people would and do, or maintain the integrity you've shown so far and actually respond to the points this speaker makes.

Failing that, let's see if you can at least tell me why he is different from the majority of Americans in their true opinion on this matter, IF indeed he is significantly different, as judged by the actual voting records of Americans.


For there are a lot more elephants in the room that seldom if ever get discussed in this type of forum that I'd like to discuss.

And so far you've been pleasantly surprising.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39dW48MjBMY
(10 min 41 sec)

I'm glad you enjoy my company, but an 11 minute video is > than my attention span.

Do naked women feature prominently in this video?

The artist has dropped off of the story

Meaning it won't be in the first collection now regardless.

DC now needs to actively seek out a replacement artist- which, disappointingly, they seem to be doing.

Originally posted by basilisk
Who decides what is unbiased? Just the people with your particular views?

Nope, it's not all that hard to examine motives. Compare them consistently- are they being treated the same? If you swapped the names around, would the other side have cause for complaint? Why is one side being treated differently than others? What are the causes and motivations for each policy? Etc..



Aside from the aforementioned 'the supreme court said so,' it is a simple fact that people are being treated differently.

Let's face it. The pro-gay marriage side is trying to do something about something that directly affects them. The anti-gay marriage side is doing something that directly affects people who aren't them. That is a clear unequalness.

Additionally, 'what is a right?' isn't the only question to begin with. While it is a firmly legally defined right, there's also the matter that you need an active reason to ban something, and there has been none presented that stand up to any legal standards. Even if marriage was not a right, there would be no reason to ban it, and laws need reasons. So that's two layers on which the anti-gay side is problematic.




A highly disproportionate number on one side, and almost no-one, certainly including none of the advocacy groups, on the pro-gay marriage side are trying to ban marriage for people who aren't them.

Furthermore, is any of this supposed bigotry on the pro-gay side reflected in policy in any way or affecting anyone's lives? No, no it's not. Conversely, the anti-gay bigotry runs several large organizations and actively negatively impact the lives of people who are trying to live without interference.

"Both sides have bigots," is a statement that implies an equality that isn't there, due to the omission of significant information on both sides.

Heh, Mark Waid's tweet on the story being pushed back (at minimum):


DEAR EVERYONE, please buy ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #1 by @jeffparker, @ChrisSamnee, @JeffLemire and others! NOW HOMOPHOBE-FREE!

Although part of me admits it would be morbidly amusing if Card went crazy and did something like making Superman murder Apollo and Midnighter

What kind of world do we live in when a guy can't freely hate on gays?

Poor guy, he's not boycotting fashion designing, and painters.

This just shows why he was right to hate on them. I bet his stories are amazing

Bleeding Cool says- DC in 'no rush' to find a new artist


Oh, and one store that was planning on carrying it, was also planning on donating the proceeds to a pro-gay marriage group.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
What kind of world do we live in when a guy can't freely hate on gays?

Poor guy, he's not boycotting fashion designing, and painters.

This just shows why he was right to hate on them. I bet his stories are amazing



Ah, it's more than hate, he's in favour of them being put in jail for having a homosexual lifestyle.

How are some of you NOT getting this? (Were you just being sarcastic?)

Originally posted by roughrider


Ah, it's more than hate, he's in favour of them being put in jail for having a homosexual lifestyle.

How are some of you NOT getting this? (Were you just being sarcastic?)



Sarcasm usually falls flat on any discussion involving social issues, which is why I rarely, if ever, use it when talking about such things.

I'm really not sure where you're coming from with this. Card's article, as I pointed out before, was from 1990, when the practices you were talking about were illegal pretty much everywhere in the United States. Card would have had to have been far from ordinary, some sort of liberal progressive type, not merely J.Q. Averageperson, to advocate that the law be ignored or suspended for what you're suggesting.

Actually, if the recent chart I showed you is accurate (I'm not really sure how full the impact of "Lawrence versus Texas" was) about 30 some-odd states in America voted for bans to what you're calling "same-sex" marriage in the past 10 years. "Gay marriage" is still not something the average mainstream American will actually support with an actual VOTE, even in this day and age.

Which is why I don't get the kind of animosity Card seems to be getting.
Also, it would be helpful if you would post something to support your idea that whatever family group he apparently is a member of actively engages in true discrimination. Even Chick Fil-A has been branded a "hate group" by some in the media, when all the founder said was that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, the majority of Americans, to judge again from their actual VOTES on the matter, not merely informal and/or misleading polls, believe that.

How is Card so different from your average citizen?

Far more to the point, how do you expect Card's views to affect the kind of story he would produce for DC? What EXACTLY do you think you're going to see from him, which has to get past DC editorial, mind you, that you're so afraid of?

Well, considering support passed 50% two years ago, I can happily say that's not true any more (Latest poll: 54% vs 46% according to CBS)

It's an issue where views have been changing significantly.


That's also a reason why there's so many anti-gay bills: There's very much a view of "We need to block them now or they'll put in a law to legalize it in 2-3 years," among this type.

And some of the anti-laws are only passing due to large amount of money poured in by organizations... like Card's.



Because his view and, importantly, actions, are still negatively affecting people's lives.

Doing bad things doesn't become not doing bad things just because a lot of people still don't mind it, and a lot of them simply don't see what the deal is about the issue/get how important it is to those involved; they're neither actively malicious or actively doing anything about it.

There's a very big difference between passively not supporting, and actively getting in the way of people trying to improve their lives.



Because... not only is he more vocal, but has a major role in an organization that exists purely to ban gay marriage and puts money into it?



I can judge an author for their actions in addition to their writing.

His recent writing is also apparently crap, but still, it's a simple thing called 'voting with your dollars'. If an author is someone that supports a cause I'm opposed to, I won't support them by buying their stuff.

He actively wishes negative things on tons of people, and does stuff about it. I'll even tend avoid authors because they're simple jerks, let alone one who's a member of an organization who's purpose is to mess with people's lives.

I will add that I have trouble getting into a mindset where "Why do you have such a problem with someone actively trying to interfere with your life and the lives of others?" is a confusion question.

I don't know, this whole thing speaks to that whole letting the artist's work stand on it's own thing and where you draw the line. I mean would it be hypocritical to pull Orson Scott Card and not pull Frank Miller and Steve Ditko? What about every WWII or Korea era writer and artist who drew Asians as yellow skinned, reptilian monsters? Some of those early Daredevil and X-Men comics are pretty damn misogynistic too. None of you cringe when Karen Page more or less thinks "damn, this gash between my thighs makes me so silly and stupid" and when every interaction between Beast and Bernard the poet reads as "I may be a mutant, but who the **** is this queer?"

If you want the ultimate debate of separating one's lifestyle and sympathies from their art, try Leni Riefenstahl. She would be dogged forever by the label of being a Nazi sympathizer, and she likely was - she stayed in Germany when others directors like Fritz Lang bolted the country, and became Hitler's favourite director with landmark documentaries like Olympia and Triumph Of The Will, which actively put forth Nazi propaganda. She didn't carry on the cause after Germany was defeated in WW2, but neither would she apologize for being an active member of the regime.

Orson Scott Card has not abandoned his ideology, and even if he doesn't actively write what he believes in his work, it taints it.

Kill the guy, that way people will be more capable of judging his art without judging his views.

Is that what all the fuss is all about with this guy.

I'm still amazed people are talking about an article more than 20 years old as if it were written yesterday, let alone that no one in this thread seems to have actually read the thing.

Here, if we're really going to talk about 20+ year old matters, let's begin examining things fully. The 1990 article Orson Scott Card wrote appears, in full form if I'm not mistaken, on the following webpage:


http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm still amazed people are talking about an article more than 20 years old as if it were written yesterday, let alone that no one in this thread seems to have actually read the thing.

He's said/done a lot more than that old article, though it certainly does say a lot.

At this point I'm just going to wait and see how the comic goes. If he does let his prejudices get involved, then it's a problem.

I thought he wasn't going to write it anymore

It has already been written. However, the artist dropped out, so there's no art for it, and DC is not in a hurry to find a replacement by the sound of it.


So it'll probably never come out.



Part of the problem is he puts his money towards anti-gay causes whatever the content of a particular book.

Originally posted by Q99
It has already been written. However, the artist dropped out, so there's no art for it, and DC is not in a hurry to find a replacement by the sound of it.


So it'll probably never come out.



Only time will tell, but I disagree.
This may be what you yourself would LIKE to happen, but I don't think it will. The man is apparently a good writer, and one that promises to get numbers and sales DC would not be able to make without him.

That trumps his being a Mormon and vocally expressing and supporting his Mormon beliefs.

Might be different if we were talking about Card writing for Wonder Woman magazine, but he's not, so this probably won't prove a disqualifying issue in the long run.

Originally posted by Q99
It has already been written. However, the artist dropped out, so there's no art for it, and DC is not in a hurry to find a replacement by the sound of it.


So it'll probably never come out.



Part of the problem is he puts his money towards anti-gay causes whatever the content of a particular book.

While that reflects badly on him as a person, I don't know how it reflects on him as a writer, nor should It imo. Though one would wonder why DC would employ someone like that, even with the whole ender's game thing.

if his comic is good, then it's good. if its a pile of hate-mongering, then **** that guy.

For many, separating the writer and the "person" leads to indirectly supporting his cause. If he spends his money on anti-LGBT efforts, buying his books makes you a part of that process. It's not (just)about the content of the book.

It's why many people don't shop at Chik-Fil-A.

If you don't want to buy those comics, I've heard there are some... Illegal alternatives to keep money from ever reaching his pockets... But those are illegal.

Originally posted by Bentley
If you don't want to buy those comics, I've heard there are some... Illegal alternatives to keep money from ever reaching his pockets... But those are illegal.

Exactly.

I don't buy non-canon books anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-

I don't buy non-canon books ...


Not to be facetious, and not to get off-topic, but, how would you know if a book is "canon" or not at the time of its publication?
I understand for instance, that many consider JLA versus Avengers to be "canon". Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Originally posted by Bentley
If you don't want to buy those comics, I've heard there are some... Illegal alternatives to keep money from ever reaching his pockets... But those are illegal.
Well, yeah. Downloading is a totally different story. My last post is basically irrelevant if we're talking about that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not to be facetious, and not to get off-topic, but, how would you know if a book is "canon" or not at the time of its publication?
I understand for instance, that many consider JLA versus Avengers to be "canon". Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I just do my research first, I guess. I mean, I'd buy something like Kingdom Come, because that's a rarity.

Though I am picky about what I will actually spend my money on. I mean, even if Card's book is good, I would never pay money for it due to his associations.

Originally posted by Q99

The Supreme Court, btw, has ruled that marriage is a right, in clear and uncertain terms.


Sure about that?

They may be about to do that, though.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/




Originally posted by Q99


whenever one group is disadvantaged or discriminated against, changing it so that they're not is not only the opposite of discrimination, but one of the primary reasons we have the supreme court.



Don't know if I can agree with it being "the opposite of discrimination".

"One of the primary reasons we have the supreme court", though?
We can agree on that.


Note that not every legal ruling makes things better, however.

"Law" and "right", especially moral "right", are often 2 different things.


Neil DeGrasse Tyson -- Law versus societal well-being
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdaRcptVz8&feature=related
(3 min 43 sec ... the whole thing is great to listen to, but the most relevant portion is the 2 minute mark onward)

Yep. Marriage in general has been named as a right. The current fight is purely on whether Gay Marriage 'counts'.




It's an action that decreases the quantity of discrimination and makes things more equal. Seems pretty opposite to me.

Originally posted by Q99


whenever one group is disadvantaged or discriminated against, changing it so that they're not is ... an action that decreases the quantity of discrimination and makes things more equal. Seems pretty opposite to me.


Plessy versus Ferguson was what immediately came to mind when you wrote this; an instance where arguably MORE discrimination resulted (i.e. the nominally separate but equal Jim Crow laws) but perhaps it's time to begin steering this conversation away from race, for that actually confuses this discussion instead of clarifying it.

Let's go with a more recent but practical and generic example of discrimination being (arguably) intensified by well-meaning legislation and judicial activism:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

The following is arguably the most balanced perspective anyone's likely to come across. Definitely should be seen, even though a good number are guaranteed to misintrepret it ...


(Andrew Klavan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KY9bpTeXDc

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The following is arguably the most balanced perspective anyone's likely to come across. Definitely should be seen, even though a good number are guaranteed to misintrepret it ...


(Andrew Klavan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KY9bpTeXDc

That man is disgusting.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I know of no case where Chik-Fil-A has discriminated against any customer or employee and challenge you to present evidence that they do. That's precisely why I mentioned them as a target extremists tend to go for earlier in this thread.

If you think the entire Chik-Fil-A franchise should be boycotted because Dan Cathy said he believes in traditional marriage, if you take THAT kind of information and think it should lead to activist protest, what do you have to say about something like the following?
Chik-Fil-A actively supported anti-LGBT causes with their money. Each chicken sandwich you bought, delicious as it was, helped them do that.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Marriage is Not a Right

The Supreme Court has actually ruled marriage a right, several times in the past.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." - Chief Justice Earl Warren. (Loving v. Virginia)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Plessy versus Ferguson was what immediately came to mind when you wrote this; an instance where arguably MORE discrimination resulted (i.e. the nominally separate but equal Jim Crow laws)

That, btw, is why people are arguing for gay marriage and not just gay civil union.

Separate but equal isn't. On the other hand, simply putting more people under an existing right actually helps.


There's pretty much zero reason to believe this will cause any discrimination problems.

Originally posted by Q99


(Ex-gay conversion therapy is also known as 'traumatizing gay people to no effect and is considered harmful and ineffective by all the major psychological organizations'.)




The language being used in this thread is fascinating, if alarming.
It's like being in a seminar on how to use propaganda.

A group started by Focus on the Family (Family Research Council) is suddenly a "hate" group?

Really?

What exactly have they done that shows hate toward any person, let alone any numberless group of people?

Style, all you've told me, ultimately, is that this group supported a voting drive to say exactly what your President said, at least up until last year, when he was up for re-election:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
How does affirming that, recognized from the earliest history of this country as the norm and basis of society, suddenly become "anti" anything?



I looked up several of the things you and Q99 mentioned.

Looking up "Chik-Fil-A controversy" revealed that financial support to the "hate group" was, again, a $1000 contribution to the Family Research Council.

Looking up some of those other names revealed that most of these groups are, like FRC, not hate groups at all, but religious organizations encouraging their members to be active voters.


I can understand why voting drives concerning anything are perceived as a threat to people with special interests, but it's really got little to do with actual people receiving unfair or unjust treatment.

I was especially given pause, however, when "ex-gay" gave me the following on an apparently well-known publisher. The part from 2 or 3 minutes to the 5 minute 20 second mark is the section most relevant to highlighting how gradually changing perceptions through use/misuse of language advances an agenda.

I really want to hear your opinion on this section, whether you think the woman is lying, and, if so, exactly why you think so, and what she would have to gain from it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGA-n4JyOY

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Style, all you've told me, ultimately, is that this group supported a voting drive to say exactly what your President said, at least up until last year, when he was up for re-election:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

How does affirming that, recognized from the earliest history of this country as the norm and basis of society, suddenly become "anti" anything?
They've donated to more than a voting drive, although that would be enough to boycott them if you wanted to. You keep saying "your" President, as if that changes anything. I already stated that I disagreed with his past view.

"It's tradition" is generally a terrible argument. Must I explain why the "norm" can be discriminatory? Do you realize how many screwed up practices used to be the "norm?"
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Looking up some of those other names revealed that most of these groups are, like FRC, not hate groups at all, but religious organizations encouraging their members to be active voters.

I can understand why voting drives concerning anything are perceived as a threat to people with special interests, but it's really got little to do with actual people receiving unfair or unjust treatment.
If these organizations encourage voters to vote against LGBT rights, they are anti-LGBT.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I really want to hear your opinion on this section, whether you think the woman is lying, and, if so, exactly why you think so, and what she would have to gain from it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGA-n4JyOY
I watched from 2:00 to 5:00, and uh.....I'm really not sure what she's trying say.

Gay people run the media?

Originally posted by roughrider
Who here can separate this issue from reading his work?

I have no problem with it. I just won't spend my money and support him that way cos he's an intolerant assclown.

Like Roman Polanski. Great director, but disgusting human being, so I illegally download his films.

Yes, really. Like, it's not us calling it that, it has been officially labeled as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a major non-profit civil rights organization.



Well, they openly support laws that discriminate against homosexuality, called for more such laws, and they support 'ex-gay therapy,' i.e. traumatizing people for a cause that doesn't work that's lead to many suicides.

From Wikipedia, 'In February 2010, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced'

They also accuse homosexuals of being a danger to children, that letting them into the military will lead to molestation of soldiers, and that sort of stuff.


Are you just assuming they're not a hate group because they have family in the name or something? Because they're a pretty despicable organization who openly slanders gay people, attacks them legally, and encourages harmful practices involving them.




Yes, like I said they seem to have perhaps caught themselves on that one.

They had also supported numerous other anti-LGBT groups, though, to the tune of millions, so there's still plenty of other reasons- and as I noted they severed ties to those. The others didn't reach the level to be classified as hate groups but they were still discriminatory against LGBT individuals via opposing their rights.




No, this is not something about 'misuse of language,' or 'change of perception' through anything other than bringing the situation to light, and perhaps you should look for less biased sources than an active ex-gay activist?

This is something that psychological health organizations say is harmful.

"In 2012, the Pan American Health Organization (the North and South American branch of the World Health Organization) released a statement cautioning against services that purport to "cure" people with non-heterosexual sexual orientations as they lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, and noted that the global scientific and professional consensus is that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition."



"Mainstream health organizations critical of conversion therapy include the American Medical Association,
American Psychiatric Association,
the American Psychological Association,
the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,
the American Counseling Association,
the National Association of Social Workers,
the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the National Association of School Psychologists,
and the American Academy of Physician Assistants."

Non-partisan, non-LGBT mental health organizations. All of them view this as a harmful practice with no legitimate benefits. Which is... pretty much all of the mental health organizations.


I do believe I'll take the word of established civil rights organizations and pretty much every mental health organization over that of a few ex-gay activists.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have no problem with it. I just won't spend my money and support him that way cos he's an intolerant assclown.

Like Roman Polanski. Great director, but disgusting human being, so I illegally download his films. The Polanski scandal is a dead issue. His young female 'victim' forgave him decades ago, and neither she nor her family want to see him prosecuted anymore. They had a plea deal worked out in the 1970's, only for the judge to arbitrarily throw it out and force Roman to escape the country. The only party still burning to put him in jail is the California legal system. To me, if the victim forgives and wants to let the whole thing go, it should be over.

Originally posted by roughrider
The Polanski scandal is a dead issue. His young female 'victim' forgave him decades ago, and neither she nor her family want to see him prosecuted anymore. They had a plea deal worked out in the 1970's, only for the judge to arbitrarily throw it out and force Roman to escape the country. The only party still burning to put him in jail is the California legal system. To me, if the victim forgives and wants to let the whole thing go, it should be over.

I disagree(US laws do too). His actions still make him a scumbag human being and bound to the legal issues regardless if the victim found it in her heart years later to forgive his actions. And she most definitely was a victim(being drugged and sodomized against your will is a crime, this is besides her being 13 at the time), so not sure why you captured it like she wasn't really a victim. "Force" him to flee? LoL. He didn't want to spend time in jail, so he split, that's another crime in of itself.

But the point is, I can separate his scumbag nature from his art/work. I just won't support him with my money. Like Card.

I agree with Robtard.

And putting 'victim' in quotes implies that she wasn't actually a victim, which she clearly was.

Guys, this thread isn't about gay rights or gay marriage; this is about your opinion of Orson Scott Card. Can we please keep it to that?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Guys, this thread isn't about gay rights or gay marriage; this is about your opinion of Orson Scott Card. Can we please keep it to that?


Pr, you are right to call for a return to topic when people have veered so far the name Roman Polanski is not only cropping up but supplanting the main topic.

You are not, however, on such solid ground by asking that this thread avoid any mention of gay rights or gay marriage.
That issue, and especially how it interplays with religion in America, is precisely what people are BASING their opinion of Orson Scott Card ON.
If there's no issue with gay rights or gay marriage, there's no reason for anyone to have a problem with Orson Card, he is just another writer.

On the other hand, Orson Card isn't getting, and did not develop his views, in any vacuum. By and large he is not being treated fairly; he is being judged for statements made over 20 years ago, when America itself was a vastly different place.

The original poster asked if people can separate the writer from his work. As the thread is showing, some cannot. For Q99 and Style, the fact that Card made what is, in their minds, a transgression 20 years ago, is ample justification for boycotting him now, depriving Scott Card of work. The man who wrote the article in the link himself speaks against this, warning that people are going to the extreme of showing Card discrimination in turn.

All this despite that very few people have actually read what Scott Card wrote, let alone in its proper context.

Even in the purely secular world, there are people that hold to Card's view that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Thomas Sowell, well-known economist, is one of these.

So were, and perhaps still are, the voters of California.

So too the voters of at least 30 other states.

Card is not alone, and that's just looking at mainstream America, which votes quite a bit differently than the way polls often suggest they will on this issue; to note the surprise of those who witnessed Proposition 8's outcome.

And, again, that is the secular world.
Which Orson Scott Card, being Mormon, is not fully part of.

Card cannot be properly understood or represented fairly in a non-religious context. It'd be like talking of Martin Luther King, Jr, and not understanding that King was a Christian, or Malcolm X and not understanding that Malcolm was a Muslim and what being Muslim meant to Malcolm.

In point of fact, it is the Mormon church itself that is pro-marriage, pro-traditional marriage and decidedly against anything that violates that. Charges of polygamy do not withstand this basic fact; the Mormon church teaches its followers that marriage is between a man and a woman, something the posters in this thread do not truly seem to understand. It would not be possible for Card to be a part of the Mormon community, which is noted for being quite activist, and truly hold the views the Mormon Books and leadership teach, and be anything other than a supporter of traditional marriage.

That point needs to be made, perhaps until people understand it; and it also needs to be pointed out that Card's activism is scarcely more extraordinary than that which ANY member of the Mormon Community is encouraged to display; whether individual Mormons do or not.


Discussion of such matters as these is hardly off-topic.

I disagree. You're supposed to be discussing whether you think he can separate his views from his work, not the larger scope of his views themselves.

This a comic book forum, and is for comic book related topics. Topics like gay marriage and gay rights (two things that I personally believe in, in terms of giving gay people the same rights as straight people), are still not related to the spirit of this topic except in a secondary way, and shouldn't be discussed as such.

I think it would be better if the discussion was kept to how people think his views might interact with and influence his work, rather than his views themselves.

Originally posted by -Pr-


this thread ... is about your opinion of Orson Scott Card ...


My opinion is that Orson Scott Card is largely a product of his environment, largely unremarkable given what he has been taught is morally right, scarcely different in any way from the average activist Mormon, perfectly capable of producing work well within the norm for DC comic writers, and, lastly, should be given the chance to write the story he wants to write for Superman without unfair judgement.



Here are some basic precepts of the Mormon community as relates to homosexuality. I welcome people to show me how Scott Card's 1990 article or even any of his other behaviors, in any wise violate or fail to reflect what you see below.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Main article: Sexuality and Mormonism

The law of chastity as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) states that any sexual relations outside of opposite-sex marriage are contrary to God's plan for His children. Included within the principles of the law of chastity is the avoidance of homosexual behavior. Violating the law of chastity may result in church discipline. Members of the church who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual may remain in good standing in the church if they abstain from all homosexual relations and from heterosexual relations outside of opposite-sex marriage. Although no one is forbidden from attending LDS Church Sunday worship services, acquiring and maintaining membership in the church, and receiving a temple recommend, is dependent upon the personal observance of its teachings, including the law of chastity.

The LDS Church historically taught that the practice of homosexuality, meaning sexual behavior with someone of the same sex, was a choice or a curable mental illness. Recent leadership has indicated that it may not be a conscious choice and that it may be treatable. The church teaches that regardless of the cause of same sex attraction, one can and must avoid all immoral relationships, including homosexual relations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_La
tter-day_Saints

Thanks for clarifying your stance.

Where I come from, one of the things classified as "immoral" is premarital sex, and lord knows If that was true, then I'd be as immoral as they come. Seems the Mormons would think I was pretty immoral too.

In all seriousness, though, why is the Mormon thing being brought up? Is Card a Mormon? Was he a Mormon? Forgive my ignorance, I'm somewhat on the outside in all of this.

bluewaterrider, you've unfortunately missed an awful lot of what I, and others, are saying.

Pr has already made his ruling though, so I'll leave it alone.

I think there is a gay marriage thread in the GDF. Might copy and paste the discussion over there.

Originally posted by -Pr-



why is the Mormon thing being brought up? Is Card a Mormon? Was he a Mormon? Forgive my ignorance, I'm somewhat on the outside in all of this.



It's quite alright. In answer to your question, Card is absolutely a Mormon, and it's precisely WHY he wrote the 1990 article people keep mentioning but that few have read.

Here, from Wikipedia, most important points (at least in my estimation) bolded:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion

Card's immersion in the LDS faith has been an important facet of his life from early on. His great-great-grandfather was Brigham Young, an important leader in the Latter Day Saint movement, and all of Card's ancestors from at least three generations have been members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). His ancestors include several other figures notable in the LDS Church, including the Cardston colony founder Charles Ora Card. As such, his faith has been a source of inspiration and influence for both his writing and his personal views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card

TBH, I'm actually curious to see how a Mormon might handle the religious aspects of the Superman character.

I'm going to agree with PR this thread is about Orson Scott Card and not about the issue of gay rights and marriage.

As StyleTime has said there is a GDF thread for this type of thing.

Although it looks like people are getting back on track.

My view? Someone's current views, and more-so if someone is currently involved in active support of those views, matter to me and can be a reason to avoid their work.


Someone's past views, especially if they repented, don't matter nearly as much.

Originally posted by Q99
My view? Someone's current views, and more-so if someone is currently involved in active support of those views, matter to me and can be a reason to avoid their work.


Someone's past views, especially if they repented, don't matter nearly as much.

That's fair enough.

While I might read it, i'd never buy it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I disagree(US laws do too). His actions still make him a scumbag human being and bound to the legal issues regardless if the victim found it in her heart years later to forgive his actions. And she most definitely was a victim(being drugged and sodomized against your will is a crime, this is besides her being 13 at the time), so not sure why you captured it like she wasn't really a victim. "Force" him to flee? LoL. He didn't want to spend time in jail, so he split, that's another crime in of itself.



Polanski has directed a couple dozen films since he fled America in the 1970's, with lots of huge stars - Harrison Ford, Hugh Grant, Pierce Brosnon, Johnny Depp and many others. Is your opinion of them lowered because they worked with him? Do you think they are enabling his continuing career when they shouldn't? I haven't heard of a major star ever refusing to work with Polanski because of that scandal.

At this rate guys like Card, Miller and Chuck Dixon will be out of work soon. I seem to remember a similar controversy back when Chuck Dixon was writing a Midnighter/Drifter book.

Originally posted by dmills
At this rate guys like Card, Miller and Chuck Dixon will be out of work soon. I seem to remember a similar controversy back when Chuck Dixon was writing a Midnighter/Drifter book.


The thing about Dixon, though... is he'll write gay characters well! And he's not a member of any anti-gay organizations! The primary reason he hasn't gotten work a bit was some argument with DC, I believe (subject unknown, likely unrelated), but if he did get more work I don't think there'd be much reason for backlash. His controversy was muuuuch smaller.

Miller, he's just... kinda crazy and not written good stuff in awhile anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-
TBH, I'm actually curious to see how a Mormon might handle the religious aspects of the Superman character.

The planet he comes from is changed from Krypton to Kolob