Orson Scott Card - Scifi writer & Anti-Gay Militant

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.

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".

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..

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?

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.

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

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?

"Gay marriage" is still not something the average mainstream American will actually support with an actual VOTE, even in this day and age.

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.

Which is why I don't get the kind of animosity Card seems to be getting.

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.

How is Card so different from your average citizen?

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?

ar more to the point, how do you expect Card's views to affect the kind of story he would produce for DC?

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.