Orson Scott Card, outspoken anti-gay marriage gent, to write new Superman comic

Comic giant DC has commissioned Orson Scott Card, author of the award-winning and best-selling Ender's Game sci-fi series, to write for DC's Adventures of Superman series. The digital comic is set to be published in April.

Lots of people are raging about this.

However, I think Dale Lazarov put it best:

Dale Lazarov, a gay comic writer, said it was counterproductive to attack Card's appointment: "I've known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/feb/11/dc-comics-homophobic-writer-superman

I really really really don't think Card will sneak anything anti-gay into his work: DC wouldn't stand for it. Also, Card is not really anti-gay, he's anti-gay marriage. Or I could be mistaken...and he's really a homophobe?

Yea? Nay? Bad or good?

If this thread exists, let me know. I did not want to put this in the GDF because I am more interested in the implications for Superman's character and reputation rather than a gay-marriage discussion.

It's not in continuity, so I'm most likely not going to read it.

That said, I do worry that he might let his prejudices influence his work.

When you let your political views end up in your comics you get something like Frank Miller's Holy Terror. Which is not a good thing.

Or Hudlin in Black Panther.

Originally posted by -Pr-
It's not in continuity, so I'm most likely not going to read it.

I figured most would come to this conclusion.

Originally posted by -Pr-
That said, I do worry that he might let his prejudices influence his work.

I doubt DC would let him sneak in anything remotely anit-gay marriage...........or he just might sneak in something pro-straight-marriage which would be an indirect way of giving peeps the finger?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Or Hudlin in Black Panther.

I worry that, one day, they will give Black Panther the same treatment as Peter Parker...

He might.

How-so? About Parker I mean.

Originally posted by -Pr-
He might.

How-so? About Parker I mean.

Peter Parker's character was re-done in the form of Miles Morales for the ultimate universe back in 2011.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
When you let your political views end up in your comics you get something like Frank Miller's Holy Terror. Which is not a good thing.

Or Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, which proved to be a GREAT thing, and so influential that it arguably helped shape the next 10 or 20 years of comic history.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Peter Parker's character was re-done in the form of Miles Morales for the ultimate universe back in 2011.

And you're worried that they'd alter T'Challa like that?

Originally posted by dadudemon

[Card] just might sneak in something pro-straight-marriage which would be an indirect way of giving peeps the finger?

Gay "Marriage"

(Thomas Sowell)

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

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.

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

Originally posted by dadudemon

[Card] ... might sneak in something pro-straight-marriage which would be an indirect way of giving peeps the finger?

Gay "Marriage" (Part 2)

(Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006)

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

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.

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 dadudemon
Yea? Nay? Bad or good?

I agree with the gay comic guy, let Card write. As long as he keeps his own personal feelings out, who cares if he's a raging intolerant ignoramus. First priority, can he write a good Superman story.

A bit into Card's mind: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all

Originally posted by -Pr-
And you're worried that they'd alter T'Challa like that?

Nerdy white-boy, Peter Parker, was replaced. Why would one of the most iconic African males in comic book history be off-limits?

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree with the gay comic guy, let Card write. As long as he keeps his own personal feelings out, who cares if he's a raging intolerant ignoramus. First priority, can he write a good Superman story.

A bit into Card's mind: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all

Oh, well, he's not that bad. I thought he was actually a homophobe. I should have known better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I worry that, one day, they will give Black Panther the same treatment as Peter Parker...

OSC has issued highly homophobic comments in his time, which he has subsequently claimed to distance himself from, but it's not been very convincing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
OSC has issued highly homophobic comments in his time, which he has subsequently claimed to distance himself from, but it's not been very convincing.

Examples?

These are not hard to find. Go check his support in the early 90s for keeping laws making gay sex illegal on the books.

And whilst he might couch his comments these days behind the ever nonsensical semantic argument about what 'marriage'; means, he very recently called gay rights 'a collective delusion'. which reveals he is still pretty much where he always was. The man's a homophobic bigot.

I don't think that's a factor in him being an author though. If he writes bigotry, I'll criticise his writing itself for that, but if it is not, then what he himself is is of no consequence when it comes to literary critique. Actually, that's not entirely true, as an author's views always influence their work, but that's more a scholarly judgement than a moral one. It's still irrelevant as to whether he should be employed as a writer.

Alan Moore writes highly politicised graphic novels, with a political basis that I almost never agree with (his insane thoughts on V for Vendetta included a commentary about how he thought homosexuality was going to be eliminated on a conceptual level- he's a real nutjob), but that didn;t stop the original being a well-told story with an intelligent attempt to convey his political message. Daft as it was.

DC releases a statement:

“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=74216

Cornucopia of Thoughts:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be interesting to know how the Bronze Age Superman would have reacted to the issue, if anyone ever dared feature that in a comic.

He had a reputation for upholding law that was, arguably, 2nd only to that of Captain America.

Such certainly was not legal in most parts of America during his time.

I'm not even certain it's legal in most parts of America today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Semantics" can't always be dismissed on a whim like that.
After all, if words don't matter, why should anyone care if their union is called "marriage" by people or not?

Thomas Sowell's is still the most compelling view I've heard or read on the subject. Even Merriam-Webster supports what he outlined above, especially from the historical perspective:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until modern times marriage was rarely a matter of free choice, and it was rarely motivated by romantic love. In most eras and most societies, permissible marriage partners have been carefully regulated. In societies in which the extended family remains the basic unit, marriages are usually arranged by the family. The assumption is that love between the partners comes after marriage, and much thought is given to the socioeconomic advantages accruing to the larger family from the match. Some form of dowry or bridewealth is almost universal in societies that use arranged marriages. The rituals and ceremonies surrounding marriage are associated primarily with religion and fertility and validate the importance of marriage for the continuation of a family, clan, tribe, or society. In recent years the definition of marriage as a union between members of opposite sexes has been challenged, and in 2000 The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that reveals how little you know about the way language works and how concepts in society evolve. That is, however, not a debate for this thread.