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:
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 [b]no one in this thread seems to have actually read the thing.[/B]
He's said/done a lot more than that old article, though it certainly does say a lot.
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.
If he does let his prejudices get involved, then it's a problem.
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.
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.
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 StyleTime
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.
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?
In 2003, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE),[14][15] a non-governmental organisation in New Delhi, said aerated waters produced by soft drinks manufacturers in India, including multinational giants PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, contained toxins including lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos — pesticides that can contribute to cancer and a breakdown of the immune system. Tested products included Coke, Pepsi, and several other soft drinks (7Up, Mirinda, Fanta, Thums Up, Limca, Sprite), many produced by The Coca-Cola Company.
CSE found that the Indian produced Pepsi's soft drink products had 36 times the level of pesticide residues permitted under European Union regulations; Coca-Cola's 30 times. CSE said it had tested the same products in the US and found no such residues.
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo angrily denied allegations that their products manufactured in India contained toxin levels far above the norms permitted in the developed world. David Cox, Coke's Hong Kong-based communications director for Asia, accused Sunita Narain, CSE's director, of "brandjacking" — using Coke's brand name to draw attention to her campaign against pesticides. Narain defended CSE's actions by describing them as a natural follow-up to a previous study it did on bottled water.[16]
In 2004, an Indian parliamentary committee backed up CSE's findings, and a government-appointed committee was tasked with developing the world's first pesticide standards for soft drinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#India_secret_formula_ban
Might be worth it to post the following.
People are missing that Orson Scott Card has religious beliefs and is not purely secular, I think.
Thomas Sowell covers the argument from the purely secular standpoint if you want to go that route.
Perhaps in a bit I'll present what the Mormon Church says about the affair; it'd be virtually impossible for Card to adhere to faith and NOT be taking the position he is, and that needs to be pointed out.
In the meantime, here's another largely (perhaps entirely) secular article. The man writing this article has some background in religion, however.
(Presumably there's an opening here if you want to take it, because of that simple fact.)
Marriage is Not a Right
by Derryck Green (Part 1 of 2)
May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.
On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.
The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.
The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.
Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.
Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.
Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
Marriage is Not a Right
by Derryck Green (Part 2 of 2)
Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.
So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.
Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?
If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?
Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.
Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.
It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.
Race doesn't matter. Gender does.
The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGreenMarriage90712.html
The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court, btw, has ruled that marriage is a right, in clear and uncertain terms.
The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination.
Pfft, haha, "The law allows some to marry the consenting adults they love and others not to, but because it does so equally it's not really discrimination, and changing it would be, even though doing so discriminates against no-one. Really!"
Heck, 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.
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?
Actually, the thing started due to a Chick-Fil-A branch sponsoring a marriage conference with one of the organizations that was fighting for Prop 8.
Which in turn helped bring some things to light:
"The WinShape Foundation, a charitable endeavor of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy and his family, stated it would not allow same-sex couples to participate in its marriage retreats. Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010. Equality Matters, an LGBT watchdog group, published reports of donations by WinShape to various anti-gay organizations, including $2 million in 2009, $1.9 million in 2010 and a total of $5 million since 2003, including grants to the Family Research Council and Georgia Family Council. WinShape has also contributed to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Exodus International, an organization noted for supporting ex-gay conversion therapy."
(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 Family Research Council is actually listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Though they got far far less in donations than the others, so perhaps someone wised up)
So they had actual partnerships and donations to some rather iffy groups.
So the boycott was quite legitimate.
But! This story has a happy end!
"In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights." " According to the TCRA, Chick-fil-A officials stated in an internal document that they "will treat every person equally, regardless of sexual orientation." In a letter from Chick-fil-A’s Senior Director of Real Estate, the company states, “The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas.” "
So, if you want a Chick-Fil-A now? Go for it, your money won't go to support discrimination.
It did once, though.
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.
Originally posted by Q99whenever 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)
Sure about that?They may be about to do that, though.
Yep. Marriage in general has been named as a right. The current fight is purely on whether Gay Marriage 'counts'.
Don't know if I can agree with it being "the opposite of discrimination".
It's an action that decreases the quantity of discrimination and makes things more equal. Seems pretty opposite to me.