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

[Stone holm]

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.

How so?

[Calm]

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:

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....

Thank you for actually dealing with what he said...

[Stone holm]

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:

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

So you think he was calling for violent overthrow?

[Calm]

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.

He was, he resigned last year, IIRC

[Stone holm]

He was, he resigned last year, IIRC

Was that an act of repentance?

[Calm]

My memory says that he was of the attitude it wasn't doing any good, something about the issue being "moot" now. No time to do research and find the exact stuff, sorry. Only on here because of my addiction at the moment, any second now I am going to have family storming in my door demanding that I put the laptop down and back slowly away from it.

[Daniel2]

So you think he was calling for violent overthrow?

I agree with Sometimesaint; Card's words certainly read as a suggestion to revert to violence ("by whatever means necessary") to overthrow a pro-marriage-equality government (the "mortal enemy" who's "constitution" must "die"), and border on treason (as I noted early in this thread). Why do you ask?

Daniel

[Stargazer]

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

You think he's anti-gay. Does this mean that you think he wants pogroms against gay people? Or just that he is opposed to gay marriage -- LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE? Are those of us who are opposed to gay marriage not permitted to have public figures who can represent our positions? Only those who are in favor of it may have such?

This is what drives me up the wall. You have virtually every single media figure that exists in this country all on the side of gay gay gay marriage. Yippee!!! But let one media figure take the opposite stance and it is time to break out the torches and pitchforks to drive him out of the village.

If there were an election, and gay rights advocates were to send reps to the polling places in order to examine the ballot of every single person casting a vote, and adding those who voted against gay marriage to a list of those who were to be persecuted because of their vote, it would approach what is being done to OSC. He is seen as not permitted to make money on a film that doesn't even have anything to do with the issue at all, just because his expressed opinion goes contrary to yours. You know my opinion on the subject, why are you not writing a letter to my employer to ask him to lay me off my job because I voted against gay marriage in Washington state? Hey, I will make it easy for you: I work for Washington state government. I am a government employee. PM me and I will send you contact information so you can get ahold of my boss and ask that I be demoted, laid off, fired, assigned to do work I am not trained to do so I can be given a bad efficiency report, or so that some other negative outcome can result. Of course I have no right to employment because I disagree with your position on gay marriage, right?

It makes me sick. I am so freaking fed up with the whole thing. I am so fed up with gay rights I cannot even begin to express it adequately.

[Storm Rider]

I have concluded that the gay zealots have a lot in common with the Guardians Office for the Church of Scientology. Anyone step out of line and they are there to pound you into submission; all done with a pretense of innocence. We are just doing this for "love".

[Stone holm]

You think he's anti-gay. Does this mean that you think he wants pogroms against gay people? Or just that he is opposed to gay marriage -- LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE? Are those of us who are opposed to gay marriage not permitted to have public figures who can represent our positions? Only those who are in favor of it may have such?

This is what drives me up the wall. You have virtually every single media figure that exists in this country all on the side of gay gay gay marriage. Yippee!!! But let one media figure take the opposite stance and it is time to break out the torches and pitchforks to drive him out of the village.

If there were an election, and gay rights advocates were to send reps to the polling places in order to examine the ballot of every single person casting a vote, and adding those who voted against gay marriage to a list of those who were to be persecuted because of their vote, it would approach what is being done to OSC. He is seen as not permitted to make money on a film that doesn't even have anything to do with the issue at all, just because his expressed opinion goes contrary to yours. You know my opinion on the subject, why are you not writing a letter to my employer to ask him to lay me off my job because I voted against gay marriage in Washington state? Hey, I will make it easy for you: I work for Washington state government. I am a government employee. PM me and I will send you contact information so you can get ahold of my boss and ask that I be demoted, laid off, fired, assigned to do work I am not trained to do so I can be given a bad efficiency report, or so that some other negative outcome can result. Of course I have no right to employment because I disagree with your position on gay marriage, right?

It makes me sick. I am so freaking fed up with the whole thing. I am so fed up with gay rights I cannot even begin to express it adequately.

I suspect those who got drummed out of the military and various careers for being gay felt the same way.

[rockpond]

You think he's anti-gay. Does this mean that you think he wants pogroms against gay people? Or just that he is opposed to gay marriage -- LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE? Are those of us who are opposed to gay marriage not permitted to have public figures who can represent our positions? Only those who are in favor of it may have such?

Yes, you are permitted to have public figures who represent your positions. And you do. The Republican party, for example. And even the democrat party up until recently. And it wasn't until a few years ago that election results started to turn against you. So you can drop the victim attitude.

As has been explained, repeatedly, OSC isn't just some average joe on the street who is opposed to gay marriage. He was on the board of the group leading the fight against gay marriage.

This is what drives me up the wall. You have virtually every single media figure that exists in this country all on the side of gay gay gay marriage. Yippee!!! But let one media figure take the opposite stance and it is time to break out the torches and pitchforks to drive him out of the village.

If there were an election, and gay rights advocates were to send reps to the polling places in order to examine the ballot of every single person casting a vote, and adding those who voted against gay marriage to a list of those who were to be persecuted because of their vote, it would approach what is being done to OSC. He is seen as not permitted to make money on a film that doesn't even have anything to do with the issue at all, just because his expressed opinion goes contrary to yours. You know my opinion on the subject, why are you not writing a letter to my employer to ask him to lay me off my job because I voted against gay marriage in Washington state? Hey, I will make it easy for you: I work for Washington state government. I am a government employee. PM me and I will send you contact information so you can get ahold of my boss and ask that I be demoted, laid off, fired, assigned to do work I am not trained to do so I can be given a bad efficiency report, or so that some other negative outcome can result. Of course I have no right to employment because I disagree with your position on gay marriage, right?

Did you happen to notice when the Million Moms group worked toward getting Ellen Degeneres fired from her job as JC Penny's spokesperson because of her position on gay rights? Again, you can drop the victim card now.

I, personally, am not supporting the boycott against Ender's Game. But people have a right to give their money to businesses and individuals of their choosing.

It makes me sick. I am so freaking fed up with the whole thing. I am so fed up with gay rights I cannot even begin to express it adequately.

Yeah - I noticed on your blog that you felt Katy Perry ruined her video by including a gay character. I guess that gay people shouldn't be allowed to also "realize that they have within themselves exciting potentialities". Too controversial, eh?

[thesometimesaint]

How so?

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.

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.

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.

First Amendment to US Constitution: ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We have the right to be peaceable, and to petition the government. We don't have the right to use whatever means possible or necessary to change the law.

[Stargazer]

I suspect those who got drummed out of the military and various careers for being gay felt the same way.

Oh spare me. Society acted stupid for a long time (one tragic case being Alan Turing, one of the most brilliant crypologists in the world), and so this means that now we have to act stupid on the flip side, just to keep it even? You're being ridiculous.

Can't we all just get along? To quote a famous philosopher of the previous century. Why can't I oppose same sex marriage without standing in danger of being pilloried in the public eye for my opinion, when those who are in favor of it stand in no such danger? It isn't like this is some traditional fundamental right that the brave souls are standing up in favor of (because virtually no civilization no matter how debauched has ever recognized such a right, qua right). It is a fundamental change in society, unlike doing away with the persecution of gays for being gay. Fundamental changes in society should not be entered into lightly, nor should opposition to same be treated as Holocaust Denial.

[Stargazer]

Yes, you are permitted to have public figures who represent your positions. And you do. The Republican party, for example. And even the democrat party up until recently. And it wasn't until a few years ago that election results started to turn against you. So you can drop the victim attitude.

Why should I drop the victim attitude again? Because I'm losing? I can't be a victim unless I am winning? Oh, my. That's kind of, I don't know, completely illogical? Yes, that's it.

And no, I am not permitted to have public figures who represent my views. OSC is to be destroyed. He is to be rendered completely impotent. He must become a nonperson. He must lose his job. All because he expresses an opinion and a point of view that the Left does not agree with. It is even more serious with him, since he has been a card-carrying liberal democrat. Double whammy.

As has been explained, repeatedly, OSC isn't just some average joe on the street who is opposed to gay marriage. He was on the board of the group leading the fight against gay marriage.

So what if he was on the board of the group leading the fight against gay marriage? Didn't you just write that I was permitted to have public figures who represent my position? That's OSC! If he wasn't on the board of NOM then you'd be happy to allow him to stand up for opposing gay marriage? Your problem is just that he was working too hard on it to be considered an innocent bystander? You're saying he's too prominent, so he must be attacked? Even if he has, in fact, given up the fight because it's lost?

You know, Rockpond, I don't know how you can write things like you've just written with a straight face. Of course, in this medium one never knows what expression was on the face of the writer when he or she wrote it. You might have been laughing yourself sick, for all I know.

Did you happen to notice when the Million Moms group worked toward getting Ellen Degeneres fired from her job as JC Penny's spokesperson because of her position on gay rights? Again, you can drop the victim card now.

Huh??? Did you see me standing in the front rows of the Million Moms group shouting for Ellen Degeneres termination from her job? For a start, I am the wrong gender for it, but if you think you did, then I assure you that you must have mistaken me for my evil twin. Who doesn't exist. And what is this victim card you keep bringing up? Ellen Degeneres was the victim in that case, not me. Just as OSC is the victim in this case.

I love the principle of free speech. I am unalterably opposed to persecuting people who express opinions that are contrary to mine in order to shut them up I'd be standing on the picket line demanding that a gay person be given his or her job back, even a gay person married to another gay person, if that person had been fired for standing up for the principle of gay marriage.

It's the Left who want to shut people up who disagree with them. This is the whole point of the Ender's Game boycott. They want to shut OSC up, and they want him to shut up because he disagrees with them. The boycott is intended to make him shut up. And to make sure that anyone else who holds the same opinion that OSC holds likewise shuts up.

I, personally, am not supporting the boycott against Ender's Game. But people have a right to give their money to businesses and individuals of their choosing.

Of course they do, who's arguing otherwise? I think it is very telling, however, that the movie is being boycotted because of an unrelated opinion held by the writer of the book the movie is based on, not because of the theme of the movie itself. If the theme or message of Ender's Game were some principle that one disagreed with, then I would say that's a legitimate reason to stay away.

Yeah - I noticed on your blog that you felt Katy Perry ruined her video by including a gay character. I guess that gay people shouldn't be allowed to also "realize that they have within themselves exciting potentialities". Too controversial, eh?

First things first: Oh! My! Gosh! Someone actually went to read my blog! I am stunned! Jaw-dropping astounded! Amazed! It's a Red Letter Day!

But I didn't say including a gay character ruined her video. Her video is beautiful and poignant, and aside from that, I cannot even listen to the song without starting to tear up. I said it kind of ruined the message. Which message is that people have within themselves exciting potentialities, as you point out. I just don't consider sexual orientation being one of those exciting potentialities -- in the same sense that the rest of the vignettes try to expresst. Not even if one's sexual orientation is straight. In short, I would have complained if a boy and a girl at a dance had had a kiss, as opposed to two boys. The only reason that's in the video (it's not even alluded to in the song "Firework") is because it's controversial. Nothing else is controversial at all, just that. I imagine that if the song contained lyrics alluding to accepting oneself as one is, that a guy giving in to his sexual orientation might be perfectly consonant with it. And "on message". But the song seems to be saying something more along the lines of exceeding oneself, excelling, becoming greater than one had imagined oneself to be. None of the vignettes in the video actually convey the song's message all that well, I don't think, though they try hard. It's just that the gay character vignette goes completely "off message". And only for the sake of controversy.

And that's my only problem with it.

[Daniel2]

I don't buy Stargazer's insinuation that Card is a victim here, and I believe he's grossly mischaractering and exaggerating marriage equality supporters, here. "Can't we all just get along" is a great sentiment--it's unfortunate that many conservatives fail to support this "live and let live" approach. Certainly, same-sex marriage can (and does, in states and countries that allow it!) peacefully coexist alongside opposite-sex marriage. It's too bad conservatives don't follow the "can't we all just get along" mentality, allowing opposite-sex couples marry as they see fit, while simultaneously allowing same-sex couples that equal right.

In other news. NOM faces another new investigation for allegations of violating non-disclosure laws (it's probably a stretch to presume that such activities, which occurred while OSC was on NOM's board, were influenced directly by Card... But it does give pause to the phrase "by any means necessary"...)

Iowa ethics board will investigate National Organization for Marriage

Published on August 8th, 2013

Written by: Jennifer Jacobs

A national organization that opposes same-sex marriage may have violated state law by not disclosing its donors in its fight to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices, ethics officials said today.

The Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board voted unanimously to investigate the National Organization for Marriage, saying that if the allegations against it are proven true, the marriage group’s actions would violate state law.

The decision to investigate is a triumph for Republican former presidential candidate Fred Karger, who filed the complaint against the National Organization for Marriage on June 13.

Karger said the D.C.-based group spent $635,000 in 2010 and about $100,000 in 2012 to try to oust four of the justices who were part of a unanimous 2009 decision that allowed same-sex marriage in Iowa.

“We caught them,” Karger told reporters after today’s meeting. “I’m so grateful to the ethics commission.”

Karger, who is openly gay, said it’s important to send a message to the National Organization for Marriage to follow the law because it will likely be a player in Iowa again, seeking to oust Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a champion of same-sex marriage rights, and the other three justices who authored the marriage ruling four years ago.

No representative from the National Organization for Marriage was present at today’s ethics board meeting, but the Act Right Legal Foundation submitted a written response to Karger’s complaint, saying the marriage group hasn’t violated any Iowa laws.

Karger erroneously thinks NOM “must always and everywhere disclose all of its activities and donors. This is not the law in any state or of the United States,” the statement, written by Joseph Vanderhulst, says.

But Megan Tooker, the ethics board’s lawyer and executive director, noted that the National Organization for Marriage was “absolutely wrong” in several of its interpretations of state law.

Tooker said if the marriage organization solicited and received donations for the purpose of defeating the Iowa justices, by state law, the names of those donors should have been disclosed.

One piece of evidence in the complaint is an email the National Organization for Marriage sent out on Sept. 21, 2012 that asks for cash donations specifically for the fight against the Iowa justices, Tooker said.

In its written response, the marriage organization argued that the release of donors isn’t required if funds are raised through phone calls and emails.

“That’s absolutely false,” Tooker said.

Daniel

[rockpond]

Why should I drop the victim attitude again? Because I'm losing? I can't be a victim unless I am winning? Oh, my. That's kind of, I don't know, completely illogical? Yes, that's it.

Nope. You should drop the victim card because you aren't a victim (at least in the context of this thread, I don't know you beyond this board). You have your marriage rights. You have free speech. And you have public figures who represent your position.

And no, I am not permitted to have public figures who represent my views. OSC is to be destroyed. He is to be rendered completely impotent. He must become a nonperson. He must lose his job. All because he expresses an opinion and a point of view that the Left does not agree with. It is even more serious with him, since he has been a card-carrying liberal democrat. Double whammy.

Exaggerate much? Destroyed? Completely impotent? A non-person? Lose his job? You really think this little boycott is capable of that?

OSC represented your views (apparently) and nobody stopped him. We just elected our very first president who supports gay marriage... and he didn't even publicly proclaim that until his second term. Most elected republicans are on "your side" of this debate.

Although, as you point out, marriage equality seems to be something that crosses political lines. I'm a very conservative registered republican but I support gay marriage.

So what if he was on the board of the group leading the fight against gay marriage? Didn't you just write that I was permitted to have public figures who represent my position?

Yes, you are and you do. OSC is one of them. You and the public figures that agree with you have access to the same free speech as the rest of us but neither you, nor them, nor I are permitted to escape the consequences of that speech. If you are going to be active in opposing rights for a certain group, you ought not expect much support from that group in your future endeavors. In fact, they might even decide to rally their friends and NOT give you money. Oh my.

That's OSC! If he wasn't on the board of NOM then you'd be happy to allow him to stand up for opposing gay marriage?

I'm happy to let him oppose gay marriage regardless of which boards he serves or doesn't serve on.

Your problem is just that he was working too hard on it to be considered an innocent bystander?

It's not my problem. He wasn't just a bystander. By definition. But bystander or not, he doesn't get a free pass from the consequences of exercising his right to free speech.

You're saying he's too prominent, so he must be attacked?

Nope, I've never said that he must be attacked. I intend on buying his books for my son and taking my family to his movie.

You know, Rockpond, I don't know how you can write things like you've just written with a straight face. Of course, in this medium one never knows what expression was on the face of the writer when he or she wrote it. You might have been laughing yourself sick, for all I know.

I don't find anything funny about this situation.

Huh??? Did you see me standing in the front rows of the Million Moms group shouting for Ellen Degeneres termination from her job?

Nope. And I'm not shouting for the termination of OSC. My point was that BOTH SIDES (all sides, really) use boycotts as a means of promoting causes that are important to them.

Ellen Degeneres was the victim in that case, not me. Just as OSC is the victim in this case.

Yep, they are both victims of boycotts. Both are public figures. Both represent opposing viewpoints of the same issue. Both have access to free speech. Both suffered some negative consequences of that free speech. That's how it works.

I love the principle of free speech. I am unalterably opposed to persecuting people who express opinions that are contrary to mine in order to shut them up I'd be standing on the picket line demanding that a gay person be given his or her job back, even a gay person married to another gay person, if that person had been fired for standing up for the principle of gay marriage.

I don't think that refusing to give your money to a person can be considered "persecuting" them. You say that you love the principle of free speech but you don't want this group to be able to use their free speech to promote the boycott of a movie. How is that logical?

It's the Left who want to shut people up who disagree with them. This is the whole point of the Ender's Game boycott. They want to shut OSC up, and they want him to shut up because he disagrees with them. The boycott is intended to make him shut up. And to make sure that anyone else who holds the same opinion that OSC holds likewise shuts up.

And it's the same intent with the "Right" and the Million Moms boycott of DeGeneres. How do you see these things as so different that you are able to claim that "it's the Left who want to shut people up".

Of course they do, who's arguing otherwise?

You are. You are saying that they want to "destroy" him just because they want to boycott his movie.

I think it is very telling, however, that the movie is being boycotted because of an unrelated opinion held by the writer of the book the movie is based on, not because of the theme of the movie itself. If the theme or message of Ender's Game were some principle that one disagreed with, then I would say that's a legitimate reason to stay away.

But that's the same with the Million Moms boycott of DeGeneres. They weren't opposed to the products that JC Penny sells. They were opposed to DeGeneres promoting those products.

]The only reason that's in the video (it's not even alluded to in the song "Firework") is because it's controversial. Nothing else is controversial at all, just that. I imagine that if the song contained lyrics alluding to accepting oneself as one is, that a guy giving in to his sexual orientation might be perfectly consonant with it. And "on message". But the song seems to be saying something more along the lines of exceeding oneself, excelling, becoming greater than one had imagined oneself to be. None of the vignettes in the video actually convey the song's message all that well, I don't think, though they try hard. It's just that the gay character vignette goes completely "off message". And only for the sake of controversy.

I think that the gay character being able to express his true self was probably meant to be a representation of becoming greater than he had imagined himself to be. Having counseled with some LDS gay youth, I know that some of them struggle for years with hiding their "secret" and finally reaching a point where they can stop hiding is a big deal.

But, at least we agree that it's a good song, a good video, and a good message even if we disagree on that one vignette.

[Stargazer]

Nope. You should drop the victim card because you aren't a victim (at least in the context of this thread, I don't know you beyond this board). You have your marriage rights. You have free speech. And you have public figures who represent your position.

You are the one who claimed I was claiming I was a victim, when I did not do so myself. I don't feel like a victim.

Yes, I have marriage rights and free speech. So does every gay man or woman out there. My position is that two same-sex individuals don't have the right to marry each other, because by definition and for millenia marriage has been a heterosexual relationship. I noticed that in Washington state the government created an "all-but marriage" civil union law, where two persons of the same sex, or for that matter different sexes could have all of the benefits of marriage without actually calling it that. And what happened? Instead of stopping at that reasonable alternative, things had to be pushed all the way to the logical absurdity.

Now I must make adjustments now that SSM is the law of the state. When a guy says he is married I can no longer assume he has a wife, because he might have a same-sex partner. OK, I'll get over it, I will survive. But I refuse to regard this as marriage in my own head. Because it isn't. Any more than calling a daisy a rose will make it a rose.

Exaggerate much? Destroyed? Completely impotent? A non-person? Lose his job? You really think this little boycott is capable of that?

Yes, I was exaggerating. But I would bet money that there are those who, if they thought they could get away with it, would commit murder to shut him up. And there would be any number of those who would not go that far who would be willing to go to various lengths to shut him up short of that ultimate, in order to shut him up. I know this because I know there are those who, if they thought they could get away with, would commit murder to shut up one or another of those on the other side of this issue. These people exist in all flavors. We are all fortunate that the social contract we have in the West protects all of us so well against this kind of thing.

And no, I would be completely surprised if this little boycott succeeded in doing any of that at all.

You see, I look at OSC as someone who shares at least part of my opinion in the matter, as a proxy for myself. I see the reaction against him as pretty much the same reaction I would get if I were to stick my head up out of the general mass of people and speak my mind.

OSC represented your views (apparently) and nobody stopped him. We just elected our very first president who supports gay marriage... and he didn't even publicly proclaim that until his second term. Most elected republicans are on "your side" of this debate.

"Nobody stopped him"? But that's exactly what the boycott, even if it does not materially succeed, is trying to do. It is trying to shut OSC up by doing its best to hit him in the wallet. Because he is a public figure who dared to speak up with his opinion and advocate for it. And by example, it is attempting to intimidate everyone else who hasn't spoken up, to keep them from doing so. Suppression of free speech, granted, is illegal only if the government does it. And in a private venue it is perfectly legal for an individual to do -- hey, if it is my house, then you may not say whatever you want, because if you say things I find objectionable then I will kick you out. But out in public? What happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"?

Although, as you point out, marriage equality seems to be something that crosses political lines. I'm a very conservative registered republican but I support gay marriage.

And you can go right along and support it all you want. You ought to do so, if you're in favor of it. And you shouldn't be intimidated or attacked for it. The whole OSC should be fired as a comic book writer and Enders Game boycott actions are intended to do both to him, and to provide an example for all those who share OSC's opinion and wish to take action to actualize that opinion.

That is the entire substance of my objection to this. If I use my free speech and this results in your not liking me and not wanting to associate with me, fine, that's a reasonable consequence. If you decide to take action to make sure I actually get HURT in some way because you don't like my opinion, that is not fine. It might not be illegal, but it is at least unethical. In my humble opinion.

And you seem to be completely missing this.

Yes, you are and you do. OSC is one of them. You and the public figures that agree with you have access to the same free speech as the rest of us but neither you, nor them, nor I are permitted to escape the consequences of that speech. If you are going to be active in opposing rights for a certain group, you ought not expect much support from that group in your future endeavors. In fact, they might even decide to rally their friends and NOT give you money. Oh my.

I never said that one should not escape consequences for one's actions. But when the million moms were trying to get Ellen DeGeneres fired from JCPenney because of her publicly-known sexual orientation, well, they were wrong. And just to drag this thread back to the subject of the OP, gays trying to get OSC fired as a comic book writer is just as wrong.

I will cheerfully admit that a boycott does not rise to the same level of wrongness. And without directly participating in the boycott against Victor Salva directing the film Powder, I stayed away from that film in 1995 specifically because he was a convicted child molester.

It's not my problem. He wasn't just a bystander. By definition. But bystander or not, he doesn't get a free pass from the consequences of exercising his right to free speech.

And again, OSC is not shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater. He was expressing his opinion and working towards a poltical end that he favored, just as many others have done before him. Just because it's about the supposed right for people to marry another person of the same sex, he comes in for special consideration.

Nope, I've never said that he must be attacked. I intend on buying his books for my son and taking my family to his movie.

I was not necessarily singling you out. Others want him attacked, and want to attack him.

I don't find anything funny about this situation.

Neither did I. I was distracted by the idiomatic expression "with a straight face", which under the circumstances partook somewhat of the nature of a pun.

Nope. And I'm not shouting for the termination of OSC. My point was that BOTH SIDES (all sides, really) use boycotts as a means of promoting causes that are important to them.

And both sides need to realize that boycotts rarely succeed, and sometimes can actually be counterproductive. It is possible that the boycott of Ender's Game will increase the viewership. Maybe not likely, but possible.

I don't think that refusing to give your money to a person can be considered "persecuting" them. You say that you love the principle of free speech but you don't want this group to be able to use their free speech to promote the boycott of a movie. How is that logical?

Refusing to give money isn't ordinarily persecuting, no. But while this thread has evolved to the boycott, the OP topic deals with persecution, and attempting to get OSC fired from the comic writing job is persecution.

And it's the same intent with the "Right" and the Million Moms boycott of DeGeneres. How do you see these things as so different that you are able to claim that "it's the Left who want to shut people up".

Because by and large that is who is doing it. You get the MM doing that one march or protest and that's a just one. But if a right-leaning public figure is invited to give a presentation at a university, the left will be out in force to get him disinvited, and if that doesn't work will attempt to disrupt the event. Back in the day there was something called "academic freedom", but that only applied when the Left didn't dominate the universities.

I'll grant you there are indeed righties who seek to shut the Left up, but the tragic thing is, the Left won't shut up.

I think that the gay character being able to express his true self was probably meant to be a representation of becoming greater than he had imagined himself to be. Having counseled with some LDS gay youth, I know that some of them struggle for years with hiding their "secret" and finally reaching a point where they can stop hiding is a big deal.

Yes, I suppose so.

[Stargazer]

I don't buy Stargazer's insinuation that Card is a victim here, and I believe he's grossly mischaractering and exaggerating marriage equality supporters, here.

I'm not really insinuating it, I'm affirming it, just to get down to brass tacks.

Daniel2, if you were fired from your job because you are gay, you would be a victim, and under the laws could charge your former employer with various crimes in connection with it. And you'd be in the right. By the same token, those who are attempting to get Card terminated from his job or contract or whatever as a comic book writer, because they don't like his views, are vicimizing Card.

Your sentence does not make it clear whether you think it is Card or I who are "grossly mischaractering and exaggerating marriage equality supporters", but I will assume you mean me.

And I don't believe I am mischaracterizing and exaggerating marriage equality supporters. I believe they are attempting to remove the voice from anyone who oppose their goals. I can understand their vehemence, I guess, but I don't condone their actions, at least the actions of those who attempt shut up those whom they don't agree with.

"Can't we all just get along" is a great sentiment--it's unfortunate that many conservatives fail to support this "live and let live" approach.

Pot, meet kettle. Why couldn't gay rights advocates be satisfied with those civil union laws that gave everything except for the title "marriage" to same-sex partners? Couldn't just get along with it? We had to go to the reductio ad absurbam that is "gay marriage"?

Certainly, same-sex marriage can (and does, in states and countries that allow it!) peacefully coexist alongside opposite-sex marriage. It's too bad conservatives don't follow the "can't we all just get along" mentality, allowing opposite-sex couples marry as they see fit, while simultaneously allowing same-sex couples that equal right.

Affirming that same sex relationships are functionally, practically, and in all ways equivalent to opposite sex relationships is to affirm a falsehood. They are not the same, and they cannot be the same. I refuse to believe in a lie. If gay marriage could coexist peacefully with opposite-sex marriage, then civil unions could have coexisted just as peacefully -- and have done so.

But we are talking past each other here.

In other news. NOM faces another new investigation for allegations of violating non-disclosure laws (it's probably a stretch to presume that such activities, which occurred while OSC was on NOM's board, were influenced directly by Card... But it does give pause to the phrase "by any means necessary"...)

So what? I was once treasurer of a poltical action committee that got in trouble with our state's public disclosure commission, and our opponents used that as a hook to oppose our position (by insinuating something evil and wicked). It turned out to be a technical violation of the law, because the idiot treasurer was mistaken about which style of reporting was required under the circumstances. The verdict was that we were a bunch of flaming amateurs, and they were very gentle in correcting us (me) in the end.

It is said that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich if it wanted to. Accusations are easy; convictions are hard.

[Stone holm]

Oh spare me. Society acted stupid for a long time (one tragic case being Alan Turing, one of the most brilliant crypologists in the world), and so this means that now we have to act stupid on the flip side, just to keep it even? You're being ridiculous.

Can't we all just get along? To quote a famous philosopher of the previous century. Why can't I oppose same sex marriage without standing in danger of being pilloried in the public eye for my opinion, when those who are in favor of it stand in no such danger? It isn't like this is some traditional fundamental right that the brave souls are standing up in favor of (because virtually no civilization no matter how debauched has ever recognized such a right, qua right). It is a fundamental change in society, unlike doing away with the persecution of gays for being gay. Fundamental changes in society should not be entered into lightly, nor should opposition to same be treated as Holocaust Denial.

Because that is how politics works. You can have whatever personal opinion you like for yourself, but if you want to have legislation to back up your opinion then you open yourself up for attack. And, if a person seeks to use their celebrity status to influence political action, then they are fair game to feel a public response against their celebrity stance. And us heterosexual have very dubious right to claim victim status, nobody is trying to interfere in our love life or right to marry and we are free to hold whatever religious beliefs we may have and abide by those beliefs so long as we do not seek to impose them on others. We have had gay marriage here for several years, the impact on heterosexuals equals zilch.

[Storm Rider]

.....We have had gay marriage here for several years, the impact on heterosexuals equals zilch.

You mean except that our society must accept perversion, that the meaning of a family must become so broad as to be meaningless, and that motherhood and fatherhood become gender less and meaningless? That is the zilch you are talking about. I disagree completely with that pithy little phrase that is so often bandied about. It is a lie and should be acknowledged as such.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean except that our society must accept perversion, that the meaning of a family must become so broad as to be meaningless, and that motherhood and fatherhood become gender less and meaningless? That is the zilch you are talking about. I disagree completely with that pithy little phrase that is so often bandied about. It is a lie and should be acknowledged as such.

You do realize that that use of the word perversion is deeply hurtful to our gay brothers and sisters, and has been used since time immemorial to justify all types of repulsive actions towards them and other groups including the Church?

[Stargazer]

Because that is how politics works. You can have whatever personal opinion you like for yourself, but if you want to have legislation to back up your opinion then you open yourself up for attack. And, if a person seeks to use their celebrity status to influence political action, then they are fair game to feel a public response against their celebrity stance. And us heterosexual have very dubious right to claim victim status, nobody is trying to interfere in our love life or right to marry and we are free to hold whatever religious beliefs we may have and abide by those beliefs so long as we do not seek to impose them on others. We have had gay marriage here for several years, the impact on heterosexuals equals zilch.

Well, that's true and all that. But as I kept trying to tell someone else here, I don't feel like a victim. Nobody's overturning MY applecart at least.

And I don't care if gay marriage impacts heterosexual marriage or not. "Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and if made the law it turns the law into a sham, at least to that extent. It is an urban legend that some state legislature attempted to legally set the value of Pi to some real value instead of the irrational value it actually has. But if this had actually happened, it wouldn't have change Pi one iota, despite the law. It would have just made the law into a liar.

But who cares? It appears that we're going to be figuratively setting Pi to a value of 22/7 whether I like it or not. I will just continue to mutter into my root beer.

[Stargazer]

You do realize that that use of the word perversion is deeply hurtful to our gay brothers and sisters, and has been used since time immemorial to justify all types of repulsive actions towards them and other groups including the Church?

The word perversion can have a perfectly objective meaning. It need not be an insult. The verb pervert is less narrow in reference than the related nouns, and may be used with no sexual connotations. It is used in English law for the crime of perverting the course of justice which is a common law offence. I take it as a perfectly useful word for describing what is done to the meaning of the word "marriage" by this "gay marriage" thing. It is a perversion of the word and concept of "marriage".

[Storm Rider]

You do realize that that use of the word perversion is deeply hurtful to our gay brothers and sisters, and has been used since time immemorial to justify all types of repulsive actions towards them and other groups including the Church?

Although I appreciate your desire to appear tolerant and I view myself as a tolerant person, I will not pull a punch simply because I do not want to hurt your feelings. If there is a need for repentance and I was in a proper position, I would tell you the same thing without trying to hint that you needed a closer walk with God and then think all was well in Zion. Though I have some very close friends that are gay I remain clear that acting on those feelings is perversion of what our Father in Heaven has intended for his children. Society has become far too desensitized to the whole notion of SSA and what it means. It is the funny guy on television that is creative, happy, and full of love for everyone. The reality of this way of life most often leads to despair, heartache, loneliness, and a host of medical problems. We need to be more blunt about this way of life. I love my friends and I love their partners; I understand their choices; more importantly, I understand the consequences of their choices.

[Stone holm]

Because that is how politics works. You can have whatever personal opinion you like for yourself, but if you want to have legislation to back up your opinion then you open yourself up for attack. And, if a person seeks to use their celebrity status to influence political action, then they are fair game to feel a public response against their celebrity stance. And us heterosexual have very dubious right to claim victim status, nobody is trying to interfere in our love life or right to marry and we are free to hold whatever religious beliefs we may have and abide by those beliefs so long as we do not seek to impose them on others. We have had gay marriage here for several years, the impact on heterosexuals equals zilch.

Haven't noticed that the tolerance has had any adverse effect on society here, but the hatred being generated by certain religious factions in other states does seem to be causing a degeneration of civility in those States.