Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[Calm]

Ender’s Game would still be a film that inconspicuously contained zero non-straight characters....

Unless a book or movie makes a point of pointing out that its characters are heterosexual, how would one know?

It is almost like complaining about not having any minority characters on a radio show....where one can't see the colour of the actors' skins and race is not discussed.

[Sleeper Cell]

This is such a distortion of what I have ever said. You are putting more words in my mouth than a mother birt trying to feed her chicks.

Show me where I have said

ALL members of "your side" boycott or have agreed to do anything as an entire group?

]

Show me where I ever said that you “have said that ALL members of [my side] …boycott …”

I will go way out on a limb. Show me where I have ever used the word “ALL” anywhere in this thread, prior to my current post.

Speaking of distortion and putting words into the mouths of other people, consider my post #206 and your response (post #211). In the first, I used the word “society.” In your response, you substituted the word “group.” There is a difference. A big difference.. My choice of the word “society” was fundamental to the point I was making.

And you accuse me of distortion of what you have said and of putting words in your mouth?

You ask:

Where did I insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition.

You did this when you said:

What does this even mean. There are beliefs on both sides of this coin. And both sides use boycotts to try and change beliefs. That was my only point.

By using the words “both sides” rather than, say, “members of both sides,“ your statement ascribed the actions of some members of a coalition to the entire coalition. This is not the same thing as someone saying that you ascribed these actions to ALL members of the coalition..

]

ascribe: “give something as characteristic: to believe that something that is named belongs to or is typical of a person or group

Again, saying that an action is typical of a person or group is not the same as saying that all members of the group engage in, or support the action. Even without recourse to a dictionary, this should have been apparent from the context of my actual statement:

Yet, you insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition.. And you do this without evidence that the coalition, or even the majority of its members, supported these boycotts.

I can think of only two ways that one could legitimately say that a coalition is taking a position or supporting an action:

1. Either the coalition takes an official position or officially supports the action

OR (with a few caveats)

2. Someone can show that a clear majority of coalition members have done so.

You say:

You seem to be picking a fight where there is none.

And I feel that I am playing what Arthur Koestler called: “Wonderland croquet.”

[bluebell]

Unless a book or movie makes a point of pointing out that its characters are heterosexual, how would one know?

It is almost like complaining about not having any minority characters on a radio show....where one can't see the colour of the actors' skins and race is not discussed.

I was thinking the same thing. If it's not relevant to the movie, wouldn't it be patronizing to make a character obviously gay just to make the LGTB community happy?

[Daniel2]

If it's not relevant to the movie, wouldn't it be patronizing to make a character obviously gay just to make the LGTB community happy?

No, I don't believe it would be patronizing. There are "obviously straight" characters that are irrelevant to plots in EVERY movie. Having film reflect that gay people exist (whether main characters or as everyday, background characters) in both contemporary and futuristic settings would be viewed by "the gay community" as a positive step, not a patronizing one (just as it is/would be for other minorities, i.e. representing our culture's diversity by portraying characters that are both women and men, different races, differing religions, etc).

Daniel

[strappinglad]

Wait a minute , I have been assured that one cannot tell a gay person just by looking at them . Now California boy says that 'obviously gay' people should be identified and presented in film. Do gay people walk a certain way , talk a particular way , dress after a specific pattern ? Say it isn't so !

[Daniel2]

Wait a minute , I have been assured that one cannot tell a gay person just by looking at them . Now California boy says that 'obviously gay' people should be identified and presented in film. Do gay people walk a certain way , talk a particular way , dress after a specific pattern ? Say it isn't so !

I assume you're speaking about me, not California Boy.

The seemingly-feigned shock in your post is misguided.

You can't always tell when someone is LDS merely by looking at them or their personality mannerisms. However, you can often discern that some people are LDS based on their actions, conversations, choices, and some aspects of what they choose to physically display to the world about themselves.

Mormons aren't necessaily "observably LDS" through their mannerisms, but are "observably LDS" when they:

speak about their missions, hometeaching, or church callings,

display a temple-wedding photo,

read or carryThe Book of Mormon,

wear a "Pioneer Trek" or "EFY" t-shirt,

etc.,

In a similar way, gays and lesbians aren't necessaily "observably gay" through their mannerisms, but are "observably gay" when same-sex couples:

hold hands,

kiss,

show affection,

make a passing reference about their same-sex boy/girl-friend, spouse, or date,

display a family photo,

co-parent together,

etc.

This ain't rocket science, folks.

Daniel

[california boy]

]

Show me where I ever said that you “have said that ALL members of [my side] …boycott …”

I will go way out on a limb. Show me where I have ever used the word “ALL” anywhere in this thread, prior to my current post.

Speaking of distortion and putting words into the mouths of other people, consider my post #206 and your response (post #211). In the first, I used the word “society.” In your response, you substituted the word “group.” There is a difference. A big difference.. My choice of the word “society” was fundamental to the point I was making.

And you accuse me of distortion of what you have said and of putting words in your mouth?

You ask:

You did this when you said:

By using the words “both sides” rather than, say, “members of both sides,“ your statement ascribed the actions of some members of a coalition to the entire coalition. This is not the same thing as someone saying that you ascribed these actions to ALL members of the coalition..

Again, saying that an action is typical of a person or group is not the same as saying that all members of the group engage in, or support the action. Even without recourse to a dictionary, this should have been apparent from the context of my actual statement:

I can think of only two ways that one could legitimately say that a coalition is taking a position or supporting an action:

1. Either the coalition takes an official position or officially supports the action

OR (with a few caveats)

2. Someone can show that a clear majority of coalition members have done so.

You say:

And I feel that I am playing what Arthur Koestler called: “Wonderland croquet.”

What point are you actually trying to make. Is all I am getting from your posts is you like contention. Maybe if you could be more precise I would understand what you seem to want to express that differs from what I wrote.

[Daniel2]

Unless a book or movie makes a point of pointing out that its characters are heterosexual, how would one know?

It is almost like complaining about not having any minority characters on a radio show....where one can't see the colour of the actors' skins and race is not discussed.

Of course, books and radio are non-visual mediums, and couldn't possibly always describe or detail "background" characters, backstory, or non-essential motivations, etc. They are understandably different mediums than TV and film which, being visual mediums, show in a single frame the environmental details that would take pages or hours to fully describe in the non-visual arts. The director and his it her team must decide every detail seen and heard onscreen.

So, I would agree that you can't really accurately compare "books" to "film" (which is beside the point of the editorial I posted on the subject).

Daniel

[Stone holm]

Wait a minute , I have been assured that one cannot tell a gay person just by looking at them . Now California boy says that 'obviously gay' people should be identified and presented in film. Do gay people walk a certain way , talk a particular way , dress after a specific pattern ? Say it isn't so !

Uhm, I don't think you can always tell a gay person by looking at them, but you sure can make an educated and fairly accurate guess as to some of them.

[Sleeper Cell]

What point are you actually trying to make. Is all I am getting from your posts is you like contention. Maybe if you could be more precise I would understand what you seem to want to express that differs from what I wrote.

If that is all you are getting from my posts, further discussion would be useless.

[Stargazer]

Just wondering why you didn't quote the part of my post where I said that I probably would SEE the film. And you missed the point that OSC has done much more than simply stated that he is against gay marriage. Did you completely ignore the inflammatory over the top remarks he has made? Do you not think that boycott is also a form of free speech? Has anyone stated that OCS doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants? Do you feel there should never be any repercussions for what we say?

I guess I've been busy, so getting back to this rather late.

I did see where you said you were not going to boycott the movie, and I didn't quote it because it wasn't necessary. I was simply pointing out, in jest, that since you were boycotting his books, there was no need for you to boycott the movie, and that was WHY you were going to see it. Ha ha. I am sure you were not boycotting his books, you just haven't bought any recently, see. It was a joke, CB.

And yes, Card has been vociferous and outspoken. So have I been, here at least. I even voted against the gay marriage bill here in Washington state. Not that it did any good.

[Kevin Christensen]

Scott puts his quotes in context.

http://www.hatrack.com/misc/Quotes_in_Context.shtml

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[california boy]

Scott puts his quotes in context.

http://www.hatrack.c...n_Context.shtml

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Is all I can say is pathetic.

Just curious, does anyone here believe that OSC has just been misquoted?

Personally if I was a public figure and was being misquoted in the press, I would be issuing press releases at the time the misquote occurred to set the record straight once and for all. OSC has long been known to be an inflammatory activist against gay marriage. It is not something that just popped up because of the film release.

[Stone holm]

Why would anyone believe that OSC's opinion on SSM was of any greater value than say Joe Downthestreet?

[Daniel2]

Why would anyone believe that OSC's opinion on SSM was of any greater value than say Joe Downthestreet?

My attempt to answer that question:

Until very recently (the last few months), OSC served on the National Board of NOM. He used his NOM position (as well as authorship of The Mormon Times) to specifically and very publically advocate, direct, and lobby against any civil right to marriage for same-sex couples. The concern is that giving him money through film royalties further fills the coffers of such endeavors, hence the calls for a boycott of this film.

Joe Downthestreet likely doesn't have the influence or potential for additional anti-gay funding that OSC does.

Daniel

[Calm]

Scott puts his quotes in context.

http://www.hatrack.c...n_Context.shtml

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I wonder why it took him so long.

[Calm]

Just curious, does anyone here believe that OSC has just been misquoted?

How about actually dealing with his explanations and not just dismissing them?

[Stone holm]

How about actually dealing with his explanations and not just dismissing them?

If he is on the Board of Directors of NOM, then I would suppose that anything he has to say on the subject can basically be dismissed.

[Kevin Christensen]

Is all I can say is pathetic.

Just curious, does anyone here believe that OSC has just been misquoted?

Personally if I was a public figure and was being misquoted in the press, I would be issuing press releases at the time the misquote occurred to set the record straight once and for all. OSC has long been known to be an inflammatory activist against gay marriage. It is not something that just popped up because of the film release.

Caricatured. Propaganda and caricature are all about selection and emphasis, what to emphasize, how much, how to contextualize, what to ignore. Mass movements need folk devils. Rene Girard writes eloquently about what sort of person gets selected and why, and why it is so important that their guilt is never ever questioned.

Since I have known Scott as a person for over 30 years, I can tell the difference between the caricature of a folk devil, and the 3D, flesh and blood person.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[california boy]

How about actually dealing with his explanations and not just dismissing them?

Caricatured. Propaganda and caricature are all about selection and emphasis, what to emphasize, how much, how to contextualize, what to ignore. Mass movements need folk devils. Rene Girard writes eloquently about what sort of person gets selected and why, and why it is so important that their guilt is never ever questioned.

Since I have known Scott as a person for over 30 years, I can tell the difference between the caricature of a folk devil, and the 3D, flesh and blood person.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Did OSC serve on the board of NOM? Do you think that if Maggie Gallagher wrote a script for a movie that her movie would not be boycotted by the gay community? Are either one of you suggesting that OSC is a moderate when talking about gay marriage? Are you trying to paint him as someone who has not spent a great deal of energy in the public forum demonizing gay marriage? Next time you see him Kevin, why don't you ask him that question.

[Calm]

Are either one of you suggesting that OSC is a moderate when talking about gay marriage?

Not me.

You have still not addressed his comments at all and how he is wrong in his portrayal of them however. I am not saying his portrayal is accurate, but so far we have his and....

Well an accusation that he has demonized the gay community...nothing about what he's actually said here.

[Daniel2]

Strange that a failure to provide the quote in full context is being blamed or raised as an issue in this thread. There must be some selective amnesia going on. I posted lengthy excerpts of the offensive text, and the link to Card's Deseret News original, full article for context, back on February 13th, in this very thread. Here's my post again:

Orson Scott Card has done far more than merely promote traditional marriage, and more than merely disagree with or oppose same-sex marriage. He has advocated that citizens should overthrow the government by "destroying it and bringing it down" if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. (If you missed it, it's here: http://www.deseretne...age.html?pg=all). Some excerpts:

Why should married people tolerate

the interference of

such a government or society

in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then

why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and

any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down,

so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage,

it is that insane Constitution,

not marriage,

that will die.

(bold added)

That kind of extremism goes beyond mere "disagreement." It goes beyond simply "supporting traditional marriage." It goes beyond simply "opposing same-sex marriage." If the government endorses both traditional and same-sex marriage, Card is openly endorsing the "destruction of government" and "the death of the constitution," and he explicitly states "by whatever means possible or necessary."

Thankfully, Mr. Card's view is not representative of any official position by the LDS Church (at least, none that I'm aware of), and I do not believe his sentiments reflect the majority of Latter-day Saints' view on that particular point.

I have mixed feelings about boycotts, and about organizations firing people for personal beliefs. However, I find it ironic that extremists on both sides of an issue feign outrage, victimization, and cry bloody murder when they perceive that "the other side" is doing exactly what they've done "to the other side."

Daniel2

Another portion of the article reads:

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments,

by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

I fail to see how any of OSC's comments above were misconstrued, and I find defensive attempts to claim he was misquoted or his words taken out of context to be patently absurd.

Though its possible that the majority of his conservative audience likely doesn't recall the original context of his words, and though Card may be as nice a person in real life as Kevin claims, the more context his words are given, the more obvious the bigotry of his statements becomes, and the deeper the hole he finds himself in. If Card becomes an infamous "folk devil," he is no victim of misunderstanding, and has no one to blame but the clarity of his own pen, his position at NOM, and the limited scope of his own shortsightedness.

Daniel

[Stone holm]

If he is on the Board of Directors of NOM then he is fair game for boycott regardless of timing and context of his remarks.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Under our system of government we are entitled to disagree with and even actively campaign against any laws as we see fit. However what OSC did there isn't simple disagreement with but borders on treason.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Under our system of government we are entitled to disagree with and even actively campaign against any laws as we see fit. However what OSC did there isn't simple disagreement with but borders on treason.

Wisely put, SS.

Daniel