Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

bravetoaster:

barbzilla:
Marriage has always been a religious institution. In the US of A religion and politics is supposed to be separated. By making laws about Marriage, the government is effectively restricting people's religious beliefs (which it is not supposed to, but has been doing for some time).

Reality disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage as it is being discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that permits them certain legal rights and responsibilities (see above link).

No one in the government gives a damn (or should give a damn, or can do anything about) your little religious crap. You have fun with your verbal agreements with your God or gods or whatever you happen to form religious marriage-y agreements with. If your religion allows you to marry someone or something, go for it. The US government does not care about your religious practices (so long as they're not breaking any laws).

The government and its citizens are concerned with legal rights and people who are, for no reason, being denied equal rights under US law. Your religion does not give you the special right you to deny other people legal rights.

Dude, maybe you should chill. I am an agnostic, I don't have any religion other than just the belief that there is something else out there besides us. What you are talking about is the continuation of an agreement that England and the catholics had. This carried over to the US, but marriage as we know it today started as a religious institution. Prior to it being about coupling two people in love it was a contractual agreement between men to transfer ownership of women, so I don't consider that marriage. So before you go and spew your bile at someone, perhaps you should collect all the facts first.

Marriage itself started somewhere around 2500bc in Mesopotamia. It didn't become involved in politics until the Roman Catholic Church made it mandatory to be "legally" married as a way to increase tithes. Eventually it became even more tied to government when the Church of England tied itself to the King. This is also about the time that the crusades started, so it wasn't a period of great judgement. However gay marriage has been allowed as far back as the Roman empire, and that was with the church's blessing at the time as well.

So next time, maybe you should engage the person in conversation before you make assumptions. After all we all know that when you make assumptions, you make an ass out of yourself (generally speaking, and not you in particular).

Lightknight:

Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion albeit incorrectly. There's a significant difference between that and say, calling a group of people by a derrogatory term.

This guy gets my point, marriage should not be included in what the government provides as a contract between two people.

LifeCharacter:

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong

How is that factually wrong? Granted the first recorded "marriages" were in 2500 something BC Mesopotamia, we don't know who the granting party was for the marriage. Excluding that, it was a religious institution long before it was a government institution. Even further back before Christianity got ahold of it, it was an evolution of a pagan right of binding. While I wouldn't call paganism an organized religion by any means, it is a religion none the less.

That, is of course, unless you mean the origin of marriage where it was a contract between men for the sale of women (virtually) as marriage was originally a contract showing that a man owned a woman. I'm sure nobody is intending this as anything akin to modern day marriage (even though this practice carried through for centuries).

P.S. On top of that, at no point am I saying that the GLBT community shouldn't be allowed to marry, I am just saying that the government should have zero say on it. Also I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed the current legal benefits of "marriage" as it is today, I am saying that any two people who desire to be bound in that form of legal contract be allowed to.

Hell I don't know why everyone is so keen on entering a contract that was originally intended as transfer of ownership papers for women.

weirdguy:

Living_Brain:
snip

there was the stuff he said

then there was the money he paid to groups actively seeking to promote dangerous legal decisions based on the stuff he said

people basically thought "if he's using his money for that i'm not going to give him any more money"

i don't think it's an illogical sequence of events

Ahh, but now it will be extremely against his well being (reputation and future success) to fund that type of stuff anymore, and so you can be almost certain he won't use your money for it.

Living_Brain:

weirdguy:

Living_Brain:
snip

there was the stuff he said

then there was the money he paid to groups actively seeking to promote dangerous legal decisions based on the stuff he said

people basically thought "if he's using his money for that i'm not going to give him any more money"

i don't think it's an illogical sequence of events

Ahh, but now it will be extremely against his well being (reputation and future success) to fund that type of stuff anymore, and so you can be almost certain he won't use your money for it.

i want that on a contract

based on his "apology"

I won't be seeing the film because Hollywood can't make a child focused action film to save its life, but reading how many people seem to think that not giving someone your money is violating their right to free speech is surreal. It's the same whining that the games industry kicks up all the time 'You have chosen not to give us money for our lousy games, we're so the victims in all this!!'. No company or creator is automatically entitled to make money. If you screwed up your public image so badly that you loose out then tough luck, that's a consequence of the free market.

Konami refuses to send Jim Sterling review copies of their games because he called them a lousy publisher in his video. Did he run around flailing his arms that Konami were strangling his freedom of speech and were being intolerant of him? No. He had a right to say it and Konami had a right to tell him to get lost. Freedom of speech means you can SAY what you like, it is not an automatic right to be handed peoples things.

barbzilla:

LifeCharacter:

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong

How is that factually wrong? Granted the first recorded "marriages" were in 2500 something BC Mesopotamia, we don't know who the granting party was for the marriage. Excluding that, it was a religious institution long before it was a government institution. Even further back before Christianity got ahold of it, it was an evolution of a pagan right of binding. While I wouldn't call paganism an organized religion by any means, it is a religion none the less.

And it's existed in a lot of cultures prior to Christianity and its fucked up claim of exclusive ownership. That's the problem people spouting ideas of marriage as a religious institution never seem to grasp; dozens of religions have had marriage as a part of their culture, so naming it a religious institution gives you no more right to determine what marriage is than every other religion in the world.

That, is of course, unless you mean the origin of marriage where it was a contract between men for the sale of women (virtually) as marriage was originally a contract showing that a man owned a woman. I'm sure nobody is intending this as anything akin to modern day marriage (even though this practice carried through for centuries).

So it's origins as a legal contract don't count because you don't like them, so marriage now has an origin in religion? Well I don't like it's origin as an old religious institution that prohibited interracial and same-sex marriage, so I'm going to go with the next one; marriage as a legal institution controlled by the state.

Hell I don't know why everyone is so keen on entering a contract that was originally intended as transfer of ownership papers for women.

Because meanings change, and not just when you decide its convenient for your argument. Marriage stopped being seen as a transfer of ownership and became a symbol of love, happiness, and lots of social and economical benefits, which are all seen as generally positive things.

Kind of like quoting your latest murder victim's plea for mercy once someone turns a gun on you, really.

Flatfrog:

jetriot:

THIS! People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts.

Wait a second. A boycott doesn't destroy free speech. This is a free market and people are entitled to spend their money how they choose. Card is entitled to hold his views and to speak them wherever he wishes; but if the consequence is that people cease to respect him and stop buying his books, he has to accept that.

So then next author decides to not express his controversial views because the idea of being piss-poor and despised by people does not appeal to him, and we are left with piles of tasteless complacent shit instead of literature.

Cards books are BRILLIANT. Some of the best I've ever read. And there is no bigotry or homophobia anywhere in these books (those that I have read anyway), on the contrary, they desperately promote tolerance and human empathy. Yeah lets rob people of that to proove a point.

And what with the boycott talk anyway? First, we are not in second grade, and second, there was no big boycott movement, nobody talked about boycotting anything. As far as I can remember, Moviebob said something like "I wonder what PR catastrophe Card will create between now and movie's premiere", well, this PR nightmare is Card speaking about tolerance, how dare he!
This boycott mentioning is just cheap dramatizations.

To be honest, I wont boycott the books but I especially wont boycott the film. A lot ofpeople put in a lot of work in the film. I'll judge that and its own merits. The fact that Card gets money means nothing to me as, really, he's just getting paid for his own hard work.

Seems silly to boycott it since the only people it'll really hurt are the actors and crew who worked to make it. if it sucks then it sucks. But I refuse to boycott it.

As for Card asking for tolerance, he's right in a way. Not in the way he thinks but we should be tolernat and remember all those who put the work in.

Late night rambles, everybody!

Grouchy Imp:
Err, that's not how it works Card. If you want people to be tolerant towards you, you must be tolerant towards them.

Basically this.
I haven't read even one of his books and I'll be careful not to buy any in the future.

Vhite:

This, because he doesn't.

Heck, you wouldn't even say he is homophobe trough his work. I just finished reading Ender's Game second time and I remember quite clearly that only two styles of clothing In Battle School were uniform or being naked and so armies (mostly composed of boys) usually spent time in their room naked and there wasn't any fuss about it.

So if he doesn't promote his ideas trough his work he doesn't deserve any more attention or boycott than any other homophobic person you may know.

I take you haven't read his later works, such as The Tales of Alvin Maker, the slightly bizarre retelling of the founding of the LDS set in an alternate America where magic works. Or Homecoming, the tediously longwinded retelling of the Book of Mormon in a sci-fi setting. He makes his views pretty clear, IMHO.

He has only created one sympathetic homosexual character, in his first published novel, and even that depicts homosexuality as at best self destructive (and links it with pedophilia).

And don't forget he's been actively campaigning against equal rights for homosexuals since 1990, when he called for homosexuality to be criminalised.

Guiltyone:

So then next author decides to not express his controversial views because the idea of being piss-poor and despised by people does not appeal to him, and we are left with piles of tasteless complacent shit instead of literature.

No, we have the same literature, but from authors who have the sense not to piss people off in public. If Card had kept his opinions to himself, we wouldn't be having this debate but we'd still have his books and he'd still be making money.

Cards books are BRILLIANT. Some of the best I've ever read. And there is no bigotry or homophobia anywhere in these books (those that I have read anyway), on the contrary, they desperately promote tolerance and human empathy. Yeah lets rob people of that to proove a point.

Well, let's not go over the top - two, maybe three of his books are brilliant. The rest are mining the same seam for whatever remaining nuggets he can continue to dig out. But still - I agree, and it's an interesting paradox how much of a disconnect he managed to create between his books and his personal views. (I haven't read Songmaster since I was a teenager, but my memory of it is that the central gay relationship in it was very positively, even tenderly portrayed)

But there it is. He ruined it. And you're right, the books are just as good as they ever were and I'll probably re-read them from time to time. I've already given the fucker my money so there's nothing I can do about it. But I won't give him any more, and if I miss out on some great literature as a result, well, that's a shame but there it is.

And what with the boycott talk anyway? First, we are not in second grade, and second, there was no big boycott movement, nobody talked about boycotting anything.

Yes, there has been talk of a boycott for a while, that's why he's come out with this statement. And I don't see why a boycott is 'second grade'. In a consumer culture, it's the most powerful tool we have.

KOMega:
I really liked Ender's Game, and a few of the sequel books (although I think the quality was on a slow decline for that series.)
Still, I didn't see any anti-gay stuff in his books. So whatever.

That's because gay doesn't EXIST in his books. It is entirely absent. So you can either say that he avoided the issue by skillfully not bringing it up, or that he actually wrote an anti-gay message by suggesting that in 100 years there won't be gay people anymore (or if there are, they will hide it so well that no one ever notices). Which you believe tends to depend on how much his other statements (the OP quoted one of them) piss you off.

OT: ... sigh. Just sigh.

First off, Card... the issue isn't over yet. There are a LOT of state laws that need overturning first, to say nothing about the rest of the world.

Secondly... the rank smell of hypocrisy wafts off you like dead fish on a dock.

Yes, I am boycotting Card. Let his wallet feel the pain.

As for his books, well, a few of them are pretty good. And that's what Libraries are for.

LifeCharacter:

barbzilla:

LifeCharacter:

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong

How is that factually wrong? Granted the first recorded "marriages" were in 2500 something BC Mesopotamia, we don't know who the granting party was for the marriage. Excluding that, it was a religious institution long before it was a government institution. Even further back before Christianity got ahold of it, it was an evolution of a pagan right of binding. While I wouldn't call paganism an organized religion by any means, it is a religion none the less.

And it's existed in a lot of cultures prior to Christianity and its fucked up claim of exclusive ownership. That's the problem people spouting ideas of marriage as a religious institution never seem to grasp; dozens of religions have had marriage as a part of their culture, so naming it a religious institution gives you no more right to determine what marriage is than every other religion in the world.

That, is of course, unless you mean the origin of marriage where it was a contract between men for the sale of women (virtually) as marriage was originally a contract showing that a man owned a woman. I'm sure nobody is intending this as anything akin to modern day marriage (even though this practice carried through for centuries).

So it's origins as a legal contract don't count because you don't like them, so marriage now has an origin in religion? Well I don't like it's origin as an old religious institution that prohibited interracial and same-sex marriage, so I'm going to go with the next one; marriage as a legal institution controlled by the state.

Hell I don't know why everyone is so keen on entering a contract that was originally intended as transfer of ownership papers for women.

Because meanings change, and not just when you decide its convenient for your argument. Marriage stopped being seen as a transfer of ownership and became a symbol of love, happiness, and lots of social and economical benefits, which are all seen as generally positive things.

I can't help but think you are being purposefully argumentative. First off, I didn't say christianity was the first or the most important (why does everyone assume I'm christian?). I said that it was around prior to christianity. In fact I even stated that it has its roots in paganism. On top of that I said nothing of christianity having some exclusive claim on marriage (once again please stop assuming, it makes you look bad).

As for your second point, I never said that the christian version of marriage has any more validity than any other form of marriage religious or not. I don't even know from what sunless part of your body you pulled this argument from. Are you trying to generate an argument where there is none?

As for your last point, you actually sound like you agree with my point about the ownership contract not being anything like what modern day marriage is like. To top that off, that contract wasn't called marriage for many centuries prior to marriage becoming wide spread. Like I said, marriage (as we know it today) started as an evolution of a pagan right of bonding.

If you want to discuss this with me that is fine, but my point stands. I don't care which you decide to call what, but marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a legal contract controlled by the government should be two completely separate things. Marriage in the religious sense should not be dictated by any government institution, but by the church overseeing it (whatever church that may be). Marriage in the political definition should be a completely separate concept that allows a legal joining of ANY two people. So I don't see why anyone has an issue with my thought process here. I am agreeing that anyone should be allowed to be married to anyone in so far as the government is concerned.

Once again if you want to discuss this, that is fine, but if you continue to come off as though you are trying to start an argument, I will not be responding. I don't have the energy to deal with people who want to argue for argument's sake.

Bara_no_Hime:

KOMega:
I really liked Ender's Game, and a few of the sequel books (although I think the quality was on a slow decline for that series.)
Still, I didn't see any anti-gay stuff in his books. So whatever.

That's because gay doesn't EXIST in his books. It is entirely absent. So you can either say that he avoided the issue by skillfully not bringing it up, or that he actually wrote an anti-gay message by suggesting that in 100 years there won't be gay people anymore (or if there are, they will hide it so well that no one ever notices). Which you believe tends to depend on how much his other statements (the OP quoted one of them) piss you off.

OT: ... sigh. Just sigh.

First off, Card... the issue isn't over yet. There are a LOT of state laws that need overturning first, to say nothing about the rest of the world.

Secondly... the rank smell of hypocrisy wafts off you like dead fish on a dock.

Yes, I am boycotting Card. Let his wallet feel the pain.

As for his books, well, a few of them are pretty good. And that's what Libraries are for.

What.... wait....
*goes and reads songmaster again*...
Yeah, there is definitely homosexuality in there, and it isn't treated horribly (though I can see some minor undertones of negativity, as well as some positive notes). I think you may want to check out his library a bit more thoroughly before tossing words about m8.

As for your second point... yeah he is a bit of a hypocrite, so feel free to boycott him if you wish. I would, but I already own all of his "good" books, and I don't particularly like movies, so I doubt I would need to actively boycott him since I am already effectively doing so now.

What a fuck ugly, narrow minded, vapid, ignorant shovel face. This guy is despicable. In this day and age I'm surprised that people can still say such blatantly ignorant statements like "The gays are going to destroy democracy". Seriously? I'm sure glad that I've never read any of this man's material before, so that I can avoid it in the future. If you work in Hollywood at all, you need to learn poise and hold your tongue, because their are many diverse personalities their. OK, well most of them are materialistic attention whore philanthropists but still, at least their doing something good while they make 100,000x more money than me. This guy is just a douchebag. I wish George Takei would make a video about Card, seeing as he is well established in the Sci-Fi and Gay community.

At the end of the day, I'm not gay, but I still have a gay friend as well as a gay cousin and that doesn't cause any friction whatsoever, because it doesn't matter. I was totally homophobic until I began soul searching and came to the realization that all people have the right to their lives. Gay's, Transgender, Furries, S&M fetishists, Skydivers, sushi chefs, Marijuana fans, people who like anime. It doesn't matter, who am I, or any of us for that matter, to tell them what they can or can't do with their lives. As long as my rights aren't being violated I have absolutely no right to question other's beliefs of extracurricular activities. I don't believe in legislation pertaining to any part of my life that doesn't directly affect others. Also, anyone who gets "offended" by gays or anything else for that matter has to take a look it the mirror and quit being so damned sensitive. What makes anybody so high and mighty that words, dress code or difference of opinion can make you uncomfortable. Get real.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

Same. Sometimes author's prejudices come across strongly, other times they truly get in character.

Not interested in attacking this guy who has reneged on his old views, even though I am for gay marriage.

Bara_no_Hime:

KOMega:
I really liked Ender's Game, and a few of the sequel books (although I think the quality was on a slow decline for that series.)
Still, I didn't see any anti-gay stuff in his books. So whatever.

That's because gay doesn't EXIST in his books. It is entirely absent. So you can either say that he avoided the issue by skillfully not bringing it up, or that he actually wrote an anti-gay message by suggesting that in 100 years there won't be gay people anymore (or if there are, they will hide it so well that no one ever notices). Which you believe tends to depend on how much his other statements (the OP quoted one of them) piss you off.

That's part of the plan. By acknowledging homosexuality you are furthering the homosexual agenda. By refusing to discuss it they will eliminate gays because if the children don't know about it then they won't see it as a viable alternative lifestyle. Like how if you teach absence only sex education students won't get STDs.

barbzilla:

bravetoaster:

barbzilla:
Marriage has always been a religious institution. In the US of A religion and politics is supposed to be separated. By making laws about Marriage, the government is effectively restricting people's religious beliefs (which it is not supposed to, but has been doing for some time).

Reality disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage as it is being discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that permits them certain legal rights and responsibilities (see above link).

No one in the government gives a damn (or should give a damn, or can do anything about) your little religious crap. You have fun with your verbal agreements with your God or gods or whatever you happen to form religious marriage-y agreements with. If your religion allows you to marry someone or something, go for it. The US government does not care about your religious practices (so long as they're not breaking any laws).

The government and its citizens are concerned with legal rights and people who are, for no reason, being denied equal rights under US law. Your religion does not give you the special right you to deny other people legal rights.

Dude, maybe you should chill. I am an agnostic, I don't have any religion other than just the belief that there is something else out there besides us. What you are talking about is the continuation of an agreement that England and the catholics had. This carried over to the US, but marriage as we know it today started as a religious institution. Prior to it being about coupling two people in love it was a contractual agreement between men to transfer ownership of women, so I don't consider that marriage. So before you go and spew your bile at someone, perhaps you should collect all the facts first.

Marriage itself started somewhere around 2500bc in Mesopotamia. It didn't become involved in politics until the Roman Catholic Church made it mandatory to be "legally" married as a way to increase tithes. Eventually it became even more tied to government when the Church of England tied itself to the King. This is also about the time that the crusades started, so it wasn't a period of great judgement. However gay marriage has been allowed as far back as the Roman empire, and that was with the church's blessing at the time as well.

So next time, maybe you should engage the person in conversation before you make assumptions. After all we all know that when you make assumptions, you make an ass out of yourself (generally speaking, and not you in particular).

Cool history, bro. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Please learn what marriage is to the United States Government, then feel free to come back and join in the discussion. (Hint: it's a legal contract that gives people the afore-linked rights.) Also, for what it's worth, I couldn't care less about your religion, religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That's wholly irrelevant in matters of law.

barbzilla:

LifeCharacter:

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong

How is that factually wrong?

Because it is. 1+1=2 and, marriage, as recognized by the United States government, is a legal contract. That is all.

Hell I don't know why everyone is so keen on entering a contract that was originally intended as transfer of ownership papers for women.

Why would anyone want to live in a country originally founded on genocide and slavery? I hope you can some day realize how foolish you've made yourself sound.

bravetoaster:
snipped for verbosity

1: I brought it up because you called me out for being wrong about the origin of marriage, now you reverse your stance saying it doesn't matter because stuff. (and as for how you claim to not care about my religion, you were the one who was bashing the religion you assumed I followed)

2: I brought up the legal facet of the discussion, in fact half of my point was separating the two halves so that everyone could have a piece of their pie. I honestly don't care which is named what, just that the rediculous nature of having a semi-religious, semi-political contract floating about. What happened to the separation of church and state, isn't that the point. On top of that, why defend the legal definition of the marriage contract when that is also what you want to change? Did it ever occur to you that your stance makes you look hypocritical?

3: Who says this is the country I want to live in? Not that it is any of your business though.

I hope you realise how foolish you've made yourself seem (not to mention intentionally antagonistic).

I'd make some remark about staying classy, but I honestly don't think it serves any purpose here as you are being so blatantly obvious about your nature that it is crystal clear.

barbzilla:

bravetoaster:
snipped for verbosity

1: I brought it up because you called me out for being wrong about the origin of marriage, now you reverse your stance saying it doesn't matter because stuff. (and as for how you claim to not care about my religion, you were the one who was bashing the religion you assumed I followed)

2: I brought up the legal facet of the discussion, in fact half of my point was separating the two halves so that everyone could have a piece of their pie. I honestly don't care which is named what, just that the rediculous nature of having a semi-religious, semi-political contract floating about. What happened to the separation of church and state, isn't that the point. On top of that, why defend the legal definition of the marriage contract when that is also what you want to change? Did it ever occur to you that your stance makes you look hypocritical?

3: Who says this is the country I want to live in? Not that it is any of your business though.

If you want to post off-topic, do it elsewhere, please. The topic of the thread is Ender's Game/Orson Scott Card and his silly plea. If you have absolutely nothing to say related to the topic, then there are lots of other threads.

Briefly: 1) No, I did not. 2) There's no religious aspect to it. I'm sorry you fail to understand this. 3) The USA is the country relevant in the current thread. No one cares where you're from or currently located, least of all me.

bravetoaster:
If you want to post off-topic, do it elsewhere, please. The topic of the thread is Ender's Game/Orson Scott Card and his silly plea. If you have absolutely nothing to say related to the topic, then there are lots of other threads.

Briefly: 1) No, I did not. 2) There's no religious aspect to it. I'm sorry you fail to understand this. 3) The USA is the country relevant in the current thread. No one cares where you're from or currently located, least of all me.

You know, I was going to write out answers to your bullet points, but I've decided it isn't worth it to me to feed you any longer. Congratulations on being the first person on my block list.

As long as they aren't killing people or some other atrocious act, I rarely judge a person or choose my entertainment only from people who I agree with. If that happened, I would probably be in trouble. I'd like to see the movie as I enjoyed the book.

Karloff:
An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened.

This is disgusting. Seriously. You ought to be ashamed of this.
Card may be a bigoted, small-minded man, but he had the good grace to keep his backwards views out of his writing, and it is shameful that great work is being maligned because of the author's beliefs.
Then you throw this line in. Are you a child? Because this is childish. If you want to write an article calling him a hypocrite, you ought to damn well do it, not sneak in tiny passive-aggressive notes.

Shame on you.

Kamille Bidan:

Fox12:
Honestly, hate the man, not the book. Guess what?

1) John Lennon was a wife beater. He was possessive and cruel, and was paranoid his wife would cheat on him, even as he cheated on her. He also admitted to beating his former girlfriends as a younger man. People still listen to the Beatles (though I admittedly don't).

2) Benjamin Franklin also cheated on his wife, and when she was dying her last request was to see him one last time. He denied her. Seriously, the guy was a douche. People still read Poor Richards Almanac, and his advice is still fantastic.

3) Eric Clapton is a racist. People still listen to him. So was Dr. Seuss and...Abraham Lincoln. http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

4) HP Lovecraft. Oh boy, a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, where does it end?

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

6) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had children with one of them, and then sold all the slaves (including his children) in order to pay off his debts. His political ideas concerning liberty are still true, even if he was a hypocrite himself.

7) Everyone know JFK cheated. Not everyone knows he had several women deported out of the country in order to keep it secret.

The point is, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, Ender Wiggin isn't. Ender's game is a fantastic book, and absolutely nothing in it so much as hints at homophobia. The people I mentioned achieved great things, helped people, or produced great works of art, despite doing or believing terrible things. I still love MLK, despite what he did to his wife and family. Card is a product of his generation and upbringing, and while I'll continue to disagree with him on, well, pretty much everything, I'll continue to enjoy his works because their great pieces of fiction completely independent of their writer. I'll probably see the film too, assuming it gets good reviews.

This isn't exactly like those situations. A lot of the things you mentioned were sexual affairs, which I believe is entirely private unless say, JFK or John Lennon or MLK actually killed the women they had affairs with. A lot of the things you mentioned were also representative of the time that these people lived in, Thomas Jefferson for example. As far as I know (not American) all the founding fathers owned slaves.

In Scott Card's case, not only has he dragged his personal views out into the public eye, but he's actively campaigned against homosexuals and for the increasing diminished rights of homosexuals, specifically the right to get married. That makes him far worse than any of the people you mentioned. He even claimed that he would help overthrow the government if gays were allowed to get married. You're perfectly free to enjoy and support his work but speaking personally I would never put money in this man's pocket, especially given what he'll most likely put it towards.

I can understand your point. Again, I'm not supporting the things Card has said or done. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if I boycott every piece of media or writing because of the author, even if the work in question is rather inoffensive, than there's not much left. It's strange that Ender's Game is primarily a book about tolerance and understanding, when it was written by a bigot. However, my stance is that it is still a book about tolerance and understanding, so I support it regardless.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MARRY YOU NOW.

People don't understand that public figures have jobs just like the rest of us. You don't hate your co-workers personally for what they do at work. You hate them (or not) for what kind of people they are. What makes public figures any different?

Politicians get the worst of it. Just cause they support agendas politically that you dislike, doesn't necessarily mean they do so personally. They have obligations to their peers in their parties just like we do to our co-workers.

If the non-homophobic community shows him tolerance, we'll only prove ourselves to be morally superior over him. Does he *want* to be viewed as the unwitting villain in this story? Nobody likes a hypocrite, Card.

A friend of mine *cough* is a against gay marriage, so said friend understands where this writer guy is coming from. Besides what does ideological beliefs have anything to do with products they make?

Jacco:

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MARRY YOU NOW.

People don't understand that public figures have jobs just like the rest of us. You don't hate your co-workers personally for what they do at work. You hate them (or not) for what kind of people they are. What makes public figures any different?

Politicians get the worst of it. Just cause they support agendas politically that you dislike, doesn't necessarily mean they do so personally. They have obligations to their peers in their parties just like we do to our co-workers.

Your first bit there is pretty backwards. They dislike him for his bigotry, not his work. Dislike like that shouldn't just go away because we're talking about his work since he gets money from it.

And he personally supports bigotry. No one here has an obligation towards him as a co-worker any such thing, your post is all confused.

Kurea:
If the non-homophobic community shows him tolerance, we'll only prove ourselves to be morally superior over him. Does he *want* to be viewed as the unwitting villain in this story? Nobody likes a hypocrite, Card.

He is tolerated, no one's asking for laws to be made against him. People just don't want to give money or any kind of support to someone who's as bigoted he is, and as vocal about it as he is. It's a bizarrely annoying double standard those of his sort have where they twist the world tolerance so that when it applies to them they expect EVEN MORE than what they're not willing to grant others.

Evil Smurf:
A friend of mine *cough* is a against gay marriage, so said friend understands where this writer guy is coming from. Besides what does ideological beliefs have anything to do with products they make?

It has to do with money going to someone whose ideological beliefs spit on 10% of the population as not deserving of the same rights as the rest of the population.

8-Bit_Jack:

Karloff:
An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened.

This is disgusting. Seriously. You ought to be ashamed of this.
Card may be a bigoted, small-minded man, but he had the good grace to keep his backwards views out of his writing, and it is shameful that great work is being maligned because of the author's beliefs.
Then you throw this line in. Are you a child? Because this is childish. If you want to write an article calling him a hypocrite, you ought to damn well do it, not sneak in tiny passive-aggressive notes.

Shame on you.

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

Phrozenflame500:
Tell you what Card, I'd happily stop throwing shit at you once you stop spewing shit at everyone else.

Isn't this article basically about him saying he stopped throwing shit at people a while back?

theApoc:

You generalize the opposition and you dismiss their beliefs as bigotry and hate. That implies that people who don't think like you, don't count.

As someone who actually respects the constitution, regardless of my skin color, that was bad law then just as it is bad law now, and the truth of the matter is that there should not need to be a law regarding race. Last time I checked I was a human being, making laws about race only serves to reinforce the idea that we are different. So I don't agree with that as the ONLY solution to the problem of civil rights.

And as I stated. I agree with boycotting things that go against your beliefs, but I don't believe in forcing those beliefs on anyone without due process. Equal status? Last time I checked you had to actually tell someone your sexual orientation for them to know about it. In ALL things other than the currently flawed legalities of marriage, you have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else. Gay people don't have to ride at the back of the bus, they don't have special drinking fountains. They are not treated by SOCIETY as subhuman. I am continually offended by the comparison between gay "rights" and civil rights. There is sexual discrimination, no doubt, but that is no where near the same thing as racial discrimination IMO.

My estate and my guardianship should be a legal contract and I should be able to enter that contract with ANYONE I choose. Marriage is a tradition that was used to celebrate that contract. By the standards set forth by the TRADITION of this country, marriage is between a man and a woman. Some states have decided to alter that tradition, some have not. The ones that have are not heroes, and the ones who have not are not villains.

The more this issue is debated by politicians and pundits, the more it becomes about propaganda and the less it becomes about people. You want to get "married" right now? Either move to a place where it is recognized(cause you can join with someone else of your choosing no matter where you live, legal recognition is your problem not the "right" to marry), or work from where you are at and rally people to your cause, understanding that it is ok for people to not agree with you and your beliefs.

And again, Card should be ashamed more for pandering than for having his beliefs IMO.

I fail to see where I have done this, but apparently I cant change your mind that I have. Nor, have you provided specific examples that I can refute, defend, or admit to. So, I am just going to leave it be.

I don't always have to tell people anything about my sexual orientation. People like to guess. They will ask leading questions, about girlfriends, who you live with, how long you've lived with them, who pays the bills, etc. Thanks to social media our private lives are ever the more public. And yes, I could take steps to stay private, but I should not have to live like Anne Frank to get by in this country either.

I will forgive you if you are not up on gay history. If you don't know all that we've been through. I know people like you have had it much worse in the past. I am grateful for their sacrifice and perseverance. They paved a way for many other people besides themselves.

However, gay people in America have been beaten, murdered, castrated, lynched. They have been committed to psych wards involuntarily where they were subjected to lobotomies, shock therapy, and injected with various drugs in attempts to "cure" them. We've been arrested for dancing, kissing, holding hands, age of consent laws that were 2 years older than what heterosexuals had to follow, and sodomy (sex acts that heterosexuals frequently engage in themselves). Not only that I am sure many times the law was bent because the cop just plain didn't like gays. And, how do you think homosexuals were treated while they were in prison? Just because you like anal sex doesn't mean you like anal rape.

I am frequently grateful that society has progressed past most of that, not just for us, but for everyone.

Tell me, have Atheists and Satan worshipers forced you to change your beliefs about marriage by getting married? How about when Brittney Spears got married for 48 hours as a joke? If "traditional" marriage can survive these things, it can survive gays getting married. Marriage is only as sacred and strong as the beliefs held by the INDIVIDUAL people getting married. Relying on the Government to tell you that your marriage is valid, sacred, or strong is a WEAKNESS. We don't want that per se, what we want is the same legal status afforded to heterosexuals that publically commit to a long term intimate relationship.

Getting the government to recognize and allow interracial marriages was a hurdle that ethnic minorities have crossed. Would you have been ok if that was left out? If you were told everything is ok but this... The people have voted...

It costs money to move, nevermind the fact that it can be hard to find and keep a job where you are, nevermind trying to find a new job in a strange city. Why don't you also throw in the option of buying a yacht to sail to my own private island where gays can do whatever they want while you are at it. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Twice I have voted against an anti-gay marriage amendment here in Arizona and once in Texas. The Texas law was so sweeping that it even did away with the tradition of "common law marriage", something I am sure the health insurance companies that helped sponsor the bill were happy with. They had 1000's of fewer common law spouses that they had to cover. Unfortunately, I was in the minority of voters. But, I would like to point something out. Gay rights activists WERENT changing the law. It was the opposition that was. They decided that the law needed to be changed, so that they could enforce their beliefs ON ME.

More and more states ARE accepting gay marriage. The tide is turning. And, I am waiting as patiently as I can for it to do so.

Master of the Skies:

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

It IS childish, BECAUSE he "throws it in". It's bad journalism, and just generally shitty behavior in general.
And you're right, no one is insulting the work... except when that they relate his works to his personal beliefs, which, to date, I have yet to find anything matching. Does anyone in Ender's Game go on a rant about how faggots destroying the sanctity of marriage ruined the Earth economy? Hell, the Homecoming Saga had a gay male as one of the secondary characters, who was treated with respect by the character he confesses to, and the book goes out of its way (literally, it stops plot progression to do this) to draw the reader's sympathy for the character and the bigotry he and others are beset by.

Look, if you don't want to see ender's game because Card is against gay marriage, fine. But I think that's a shitty thing to do. And whether that's true or not, THIS ARTICLE is shameful.

You pay for a ticket to see the movie. Part of your payment goes into his pocket. He uses part of that money to make donations to anti-LGBT organizations. Regardless of how you feel about him or his work, any money you give him he partially gives away to support certain agendas. That's just the way money moves. Now, if he was willing to refuse any earnings he could garner from the box office then this would be a non-issue, we could all just see the movie knowing no whacked out, dogmatic, homophobia-endorsing pamphlets were paid for with our financial contribution, but I doubt that'll be the case.

Card is right though; it's a moot point. Whatever money he makes off of this movie, he can't change the tides of time. So all in all, see it or don't, he knows he's swimming upstream.

8-Bit_Jack:

Master of the Skies:

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

It IS childish, BECAUSE he "throws it in". It's bad journalism, and just generally shitty behavior in general.
And you're right, no one is insulting the work... except when that they relate his works to his personal beliefs, which, to date, I have yet to find anything matching. Does anyone in Ender's Game go on a rant about how faggots destroying the sanctity of marriage ruined the Earth economy? Hell, the Homecoming Saga had a gay male as one of the secondary characters, who was treated with respect by the character he confesses to, and the book goes out of its way (literally, it stops plot progression to do this) to draw the reader's sympathy for the character and the bigotry he and others are beset by.

Look, if you don't want to see ender's game because Card is against gay marriage, fine. But I think that's a shitty thing to do. And whether that's true or not, THIS ARTICLE is shameful.

It's not childish, there's little enough to throw in a full accusation, but surely enough for it to be mentioned.

And when you're ranting like that it, I'm not seeing any support for you calling it 'bad journalism' I just see that you're ranting because you personally dislike it.

And boycotting the work because of the author does not slander the work in any way. It's a simple concept and all your ridiculous outrage and offense doesn't change that. No one said anything about the content of the work, being outraged over a made up connection is something you should stop.

It's also not at all shitty just because you repeatedly say it without a good reason as to why.

And it's not at all shameful to point at a homophobe's likely hypocrisy, however snidely it is done.

Master of the Skies:

Jacco:

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MARRY YOU NOW.

People don't understand that public figures have jobs just like the rest of us. You don't hate your co-workers personally for what they do at work. You hate them (or not) for what kind of people they are. What makes public figures any different?

Politicians get the worst of it. Just cause they support agendas politically that you dislike, doesn't necessarily mean they do so personally. They have obligations to their peers in their parties just like we do to our co-workers.

Your first bit there is pretty backwards. They dislike him for his bigotry, not his work. Dislike like that shouldn't just go away because we're talking about his work since he gets money from it.

And he personally supports bigotry. No one here has an obligation towards him as a co-worker any such thing, your post is all confused.

Kurea:
If the non-homophobic community shows him tolerance, we'll only prove ourselves to be morally superior over him. Does he *want* to be viewed as the unwitting villain in this story? Nobody likes a hypocrite, Card.

He is tolerated, no one's asking for laws to be made against him. People just don't want to give money or any kind of support to someone who's as bigoted he is, and as vocal about it as he is. It's a bizarrely annoying double standard those of his sort have where they twist the world tolerance so that when it applies to them they expect EVEN MORE than what they're not willing to grant others.

Evil Smurf:
A friend of mine *cough* is a against gay marriage, so said friend understands where this writer guy is coming from. Besides what does ideological beliefs have anything to do with products they make?

It has to do with money going to someone whose ideological beliefs spit on 10% of the population as not deserving of the same rights as the rest of the population.

8-Bit_Jack:

Karloff:
An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened.

This is disgusting. Seriously. You ought to be ashamed of this.
Card may be a bigoted, small-minded man, but he had the good grace to keep his backwards views out of his writing, and it is shameful that great work is being maligned because of the author's beliefs.
Then you throw this line in. Are you a child? Because this is childish. If you want to write an article calling him a hypocrite, you ought to damn well do it, not sneak in tiny passive-aggressive notes.

Shame on you.

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

Do you dislike paedophiles? Do you read any of Lewis Carroll's work (such as the Alice books)? Do you listen to Dr. Dre? He is a woman beater. How about Tim Allen (Galaxy Quest, Home Improvement, ect)? He was a drug addict who sold his friends down the river for a reduced sentence. Elvis Costello was a racist (as is Kramer from Seinfeld). Marvin Harrison (american football player) is an attempted murder. Chuck Berry was a pervert (as is PeeWee Herman). I could probably go on for quite a while, but the point is, I can almost guarantee that you enjoy some form of entertainment from someone you would probably despise, but because OSC was public about his indiscretion you want to organize a boycott.

My main point here is this, people only seem to be outraged when they are told they should be. Otherwise they don't care enough to look into the source of the things they enjoy. Hell if half the people knew what went on at the farms where they got their meats they would probably go vegan. However when I attempt to tell people about this stuff, they don't want to hear it shortly there after.

If you want to make a statement and not buy his stuff, great. However, don't expect other people to always follow suit. Was what he said/did wrong? Yes! Does it affect the quality of his work? No. Bottom line, if you want to avoid him I will support you. If you try to tell other people they are wrong for not wanting to support him, I will tell you that you are wrong.

barbzilla:
snip

Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, or at least not religious in the sense of belonging to any extant religion. So far as we are aware marriage predates history, and thus any religion we know about. Further marriages in earlier societies, such as in ancient Greece, didn't always require much in the way of the blessing of any particular gods.

Further even if your argument held true, for it to have any validity at all one would also have to deny heterosexual atheists the right to marry - which frankly the US government does not do.

Still further, even after banning atheist marriage you would still have to allow gay marriage in religions which allow it - as otherwise you would fall foul of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here