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

[semlogo]

So, you are against discriminating based on race when it comes to affirmative action?

I have no opinion.

Are you against giving race and sex and sexual orientation preferential treatment under judicial review?

I would definitely be against that if it were to ever happen. So far it hasn't.

Are you against empowerment zones, where the government tends to discriminate in favor of certain races?

I would also oppose this fictional scenario

Are you against denying incestuous couples the right to marry?

I would support their right to marry if they agree to be sterilized.

Are you against the graduated tax, which discriminates heavily in favor of the poor?

You seem to be misusing the term discrimination, the same as some people mistake apologetics as referring to someone who apologizes.

Are you against multi-culturalism since its treatment tends to disproportionately favor certain cultures and ethnicities (how could it not since it is impractical to give equal treatment to the myriad of cultures and subcultures)?

You seem to be misusing the term discrimination, the same as some people mistake apologetics as referring to someone who apologizes.

What is your position on the constitutional, and thus civil right to bear firearms? Are you in favor of that civil right?

This has, again, nothing to do with discrimination. There is no constitutional right to bear arms outside of national defence concerns, however.

Are you okay with age discrimination in terms of marriage, voting, drivers licenses, contractual agreements, use of controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco, etc.? In other words, are you fine with infringing on the civil rights of minority-age children?

The concept of legal consent is not discriminatory.

If certain civil rights conflict with practicality and safety, do you favor civil rights over practicality and safety? For example, do you prefer that airport security and passengers incur the sizable and highly inefficient cost of scanning and frisk everyone indiscriminately, rather than engaging in responsible racial profiling? And, what about wire-tapping? Should suspected criminals of any race, gender, culture, and so forth have the same right to privacy as everyone else?

I'm not in favor of most airport security measures beyond the bare minimum metal detectors and carry on scans. Wire tapping without probable cause should be illegal. Everyone should have the same right to privacy. But again, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Again, I could go on. However, hopefully as you look further than your superficial, black/white thinking, to the real world of colors and shades of gray, you can see just how discriminating you are in ways other than race and sex and so forth, but also even in terms of race and sex and so forth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You don't seem to understand the topic under discussion.

[semlogo]

Do you not discriminate in favor of fresh food rather than spoiled for your dinner table (yoghurt, some cheeses and kimchee notwithstanding))?

The English language is full of words with multiple meanings. I had hoped we were all on the same page regarding what form of discrimination is being discussed, but apparently not.

a

:

the act of

discriminating

b

:

the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2

:

the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3

a

:

the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

b

:

prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment<racial

discrimination

>

[wenglund]

I would definitely be against that if it were to ever happen. So far it hasn't.

You must be entirely ignorant of court rulings on matters of race and sex over the last half century or more. The notion of "suspect classifications" has been a staple of judicial review since Brown v Board of Education, which gives preferential treatment (i.e. is prejudiced and discriminatory favorable to certain races and sex) through stricter scrutiny in adjudicating the constitutionality of the law.

To be against it, as you definitely say, is to be against much of the courts findings on civil rights. Nice going!

Thanks,

[wenglund]

I would also oppose this fictional scenario

If you think that Empowerment Zones are fictional, then you need to drastically expand your information sources beyond Entertainment Tonight and the Huffington Post.

I would support their right to marry if they agree to be sterilized.

If you don't require everyone to be sterilized who gets married, then you are treating incestuous relationships unequally, and are thus discriminating and prejudiced against them.

You seem to be misusing the term discrimination, the same as some people mistake apologetics as referring to someone who apologizes.

Wrong. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Discrimination: "is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their age, ethnicity, gender/sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, skin color, or other characteristics.

Each and every one of the examples I listed fit this definition perfectly. And, while it may not have previously registered in your limited world view, now that you correctly understand the meaning of discrimination, care to answer the remaining questions? Here they are (I will add clarifying language for your benefit):

Are you against the graduated tax, which discriminates (i.e. is prejudiced) heavily in favor of the group or category of the poor, and against the group or category of the rich, treating them each unequally?

Are you against multi-culturalism since its treatment is unequal and discriminates (i.e. is prejudiced) disproportionately in favor of certain cultural and ethnic groups or categories (how could it not since it is impractical to give equal treatment to the myriad of cultures and subcultures)?

What is your position on the constitutional, and thus civil right to bear firearms? Are you in favor of that civil right? (this isn't a question about discrimination, but about civil rights, that tests whether you are actually for all civil rights as you said)

Are you okay with age discrimination (i.e. laws that are prejudicrf, and treat unequally, both for and against, based on the category of age) in relation to marriage, voting, drivers licenses, contractual agreements, use of controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco, etc.? In other words, are you fine with infringing on the civil rights of minority-age children and treating them unequally to people of majority age?

Again, I could go on. However, hopefully as you look beyond your superficial, black/white thinking, armed now with your newly expanded grasp of discrimination and inequality, to the real world of colors and shades of gray, you may see just how discriminating (prejudiced and distinguishing) and unequal you personally are in ways other than race and sex and so forth, but also even in terms of race and sex and so forth--though I wont hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

You must be entirely ignorant of court rulings on matters of race and sex over the last half century or more. The notion of "suspect classifications" has been a staple of judicial review since Brown v Board of Education, which gives preferential treatment (i.e. is prejudiced and discriminatory favorable to certain races and sex) through stricter scrutiny in adjudicating the constitutionality of the law.

To be against it, as you definitely say, is to be against much of the courts findings on civil rights. Nice going!

Thanks,

This might be true if one were to completely redefine the term "preferential" to mean "equal" which seems to be the favored redefinition of those of your ilk.

[semlogo]

Wrong. Here is the Wikipedia definition of Discrimination: "is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their age, ethnicity, gender/sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, skin color, or other characteristics.

The difference between you and I, Wade, is I do not discriminate based on those characteristics. You discriminate based on some of them.

That fact that I don't subscribe to the right wing conspiracy theories apparently filling your inbox and overflowing into your posts is not evidence that I discriminate.

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Say you have two children. One asks you for a banana, and the other asks for an apple. You give both an apple. You've treated them both exactly equally. However you have discriminated.

[wenglund]

This might be true if one were to completely redefine the term "preferential" to mean "equal" which seems to be the favored redefinition of those of your ilk.

You got it exactly backwards. Congratulations! You fit perfectly in the upside-down world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The difference between you and I, Wade, is I do not discriminate based on those characteristics. You discriminate based on some of them.

That is what you say. But, had you answered my question, and done so honestly, you would recognize that you discriminate as much if not more so than do I. The real difference between us is that you are in denial about it and I am not. To me, discrimination and inequality aren't necessarily bad things. In some cases, it is the very good thing, particularly when one's end isn't equality, but progress towards a fullness of joy and Christ-like love.

That fact that I don't subscribe to the right wing conspiracy theories apparently filling your inbox and overflowing into your posts is not evidence that I discriminate.

I am not suggesting that those ironically imaginary things are evidence. Rather, I have posed legitimate questions using real examples. Your dancing around them is, in some respects, evidence, and also fun to watch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

wengland:

Say you have two children. One asks you for a banana, and the other asks for an apple. You give both an apple. You've treated them both exactly equally. However you have discriminated.

Wow! Excellent example! This is fantastic! It helps illustrate, to some extent, flaws in the thinking of those obsessed with equality. It not only illustrates that universal equality and non-discrimination is impossible, but also that striving for equality as the ultimate end can, at times, result in banality.

To see how, lets expand upon your example: suppose that one of my children's bodies was telling him he needs more fibber, and that is why he was asking for an apple; whereas my other child's body was telling her she was low on potassium, and that is why she asked for a banana. Treating the children quasi equally by giving them both an apple, not only discriminates as you suggest (some radical egalitarians might even assert that the discrimination was sexist since it was the son's request that was complied with), may inadvertently deny one of the children what her body really needs. Equality, in this instance, wasn't in, and may have worked against, everyone's best interest. Equality may result in banality.

I am so glad you brought this example up because I think that, in principle, it applies analogously to a number of pop cultural issue, including SSM and the insipid notion of "marriage equality."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

That was not my example. You are stretching it to include need. Something I didn't do.

No where in law is there are presumption of equal outcomes. There is a requirement for equal opportunity under the law as far a possible. We have in this country a long an inglorious history of preventing certain groups from having equal opportunity. It is perfectly legitimate to use law to ensure that all have the same opportunity. IE; For many years those in wheel chairs couldn't access public buildings for which they paid taxes for. Even a single step is difficult for the physically handicapped and two more steps are an insurmountable mountain. It is a reasonable expectation that all should have access to public buildings that they are otherwise entitled to. Even if it is "discriminatory" to the non disabled.

You love to use the tax code as your whipping boy for absolute equality in taxes. that is a false dichotomy. While appearing equal such a scheme discriminate against anyone not rich as the rich would pay proportional less for more services than the poor would pay more for less services.

[semlogo]

That is what you say. But, had you answered my question, and done so honestly, you would recognize that you discriminate as much if not more so than do I. The real difference between us is that you are in denial about it and I am not. To me, discrimination and inequality aren't necessarily bad things. In some cases, it is the very good thing, particularly when one's end isn't equality, but progress towards a fullness of joy and Christ-like love.

I am not suggesting that those ironically imaginary things are evidence. Rather, I have posed legitimate questions using real examples. Your dancing around them is, in some respects, evidence, and also fun to watch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When your definition of discrimination is in some cases so broad as to include taxation based on ability to pay but so narrow in others so to exclude discrimination against women or gay people, it tells me that your notions about discrimination are a moving target and ultimately self-serving.

[semlogo]

You got it exactly backwards. Congratulations! You fit perfectly in the upside-down world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sure gay Americans will be delighted to know they enjoy special rights over and above straight Americans. We should remind them of this next time they are fired for being gay, or denied marriage licenses for the same reason.

[Daniel2]

I'm sure gay Americans will be delighted to know they enjoy special rights over and above straight Americans.

Good comments, Semlogo.

Ironically, those that assert that "gay" couples are asking for "special" rights miss the obvious point that where same-sex marriage is legally recognized, "straight" citizens have the exact same right to marry someone of the same sex that "gay" citizens do. ;-)

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

If we really and truly support free speech, then we MUST support even derogatory remarks that we find horrible. Otherwise, we are in denial about our true feelings on the first ammendment.

Saw this article today, and though of this concept from this thread:

ACLU defends anti-gay t-shirt

Posted by Jim Lopata March 2, 2013 10:53 AM

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) successfully fought to allow a high school student in Connecticut to wear a shirt that included anti-gay imagery.

Wolcott High School initially banned student Seth Groody from sporting a t-shirt with an illustration of a rainbow with a slash through it and a man and a woman holding hands with the words "Excessive Speech Day" on it. The school changed its position after ACLU intervention.

"The First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech, which is naturally the kind of speech that will always need protection," Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, told WFSB of CBS. "The ACLU has fought hard for same-sex marriage and we couldn't agree with Seth less on that issue, but he is absolutely correct about his right to express his opinion."

- See more at: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2013/03/aclu_defends_anti-gay_t-shirt.html#sthash.t2vDxN8b.dpuf

I agree with the ACLU's actions.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

News of another boycott of Mr. Card is brewing (this time for an upcoming movie release).

Here's his defense:

Orson Scott Card Pleads For "Tolerance"

"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue

was

still in dispute." [bold added].

- Orson Card Scott, speaking to Entertainment Weekly today after news of the planned boycott of his coming movie went viral. Yes, folks, the man who swore to "destroy the government and bring it down" over gay marriage and who declared himself to be your "mortal enemy" now wants YOU to be all noble and forgiving...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/07/08/enders-game-orson-scott-card-statement/

NOTE: Oh, how very interesting the talk must be at NOM headquarters today upon learning that a member of their board of directors has just told a national magazine that their entire campaign of hatred is now "moot." Get ready for a spittle-flecked denouncement from Brian Brown.

[Daniel2]

Here's how one gay website responds to Card's comments:

Orson Scott Card Pleads For Tolerance In Response To Planned Boycott Of Ender's Game

In an exclusive with Entertainment Weekly, sci-fi author and NOM board member Orson Scott Card had this to say in response to the planned boycott of Ender's Game, due out this fall:

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

He didn't make nearly as loud of a fuss about the panning of Hamlet's Father. A few notes about his statement:

1. Issues regarding gay rights did exist in 1984. During the devastation of AIDS, loving men were denied the right to visit and comfort their dying partners because to the law they were not husbands but strangers. Media outlets not covering the issues doesn't mean they did not exist, and to claim otherwise is to whitewash history and justify the cruelty of one's own prejudices. His line is a misdirect in any case; people are protesting Card for his views, not the movie for its content.
   
2. Yes, the Full Faith and Credit clause will likely render state bans on gay marriage moot, eventually. It will not invalidate Card's decades of hateful statements: that homosexuals are the products of abuse and rape and suffer from "tragic genetic mixups"; that homosexual acts should have remained criminal actions; that any government that would change the definition of marriage is his "mortal enemy" that he would act to destroy.
   
3. The implication that boycotting is an act of intolerance and thus infers that to be tolerant one would have to see his movie. In other words, you have to pay Orson Scott Card in order to prove that you're tolerant of him.
   
4. Oppressed people are under no obligation to be tolerant of the bigoted views of their oppressors. Likewise, the intolerant have no grounds to demand that they be tolerated.
   

The timing and content of his statement exposes the craven, unprincipled greed of this man. He threw NOM under the bus and offered a withered olive branch only when his side had already lost, and even then only did so when opposition to his views threatened box office revenues.

[EllenMaksoud]

What do his personal views have to do with writing "Superman"??

http://radio.foxnews...man-writer.html

Not that I did a scientific study, but it seems to me that not that many of the comments were pro gay. As for me Nuh UH !

[ERayR]

How is it that the great self proclaimed paragons of tolerance are now so intolerant?

[Daniel2]

How is it that the great self proclaimed paragons of tolerance are now so intolerant?

I guess you missed the explanation given in points number three and four of my previous post.

"Tolerance" should not become a club with which to bludgeon those who decry those who are intolerant--most egregiously by the "intolerant," themselves.

While Mr. Card's freedom of speech certainly preserves his right to to promote his views, everyone else is just as entitled "vote with their wallets" and/or boycott anyone's products--just as One Million Moms, Focus on the Family, Family Reseach Council, and NOM boycott Starbucks, ABC, Disneyland, Home Depot, JCPenny's, etc. etc. etc.

All of us retain the freedom of speech – but none of us are free to control others' choices when it comes to the ramifications of what we say.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................

3. calling for the destruction of a pro-gay government by any means necessary.

(Though I wonder if the last one boarders on the perhaps-outdated-notion of "treason.")

Daniel2

It is against the law to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Gov't, if the case can be made that there is a clear and present danger of such action being taken. In such case the FBI will be on someone's doorstep with a warrant, and the DOJ will prosecute. In this day of actual terrorist threats, it is no joke and is not outdated.

[Stone holm]

We believe in free speech, but both sides of this conflict have tried to bring political and economic pressure to bear. Live by the sword die by the sword.

[Daniel2]

Geeks Out responds to Mr. Card's statement:

GEEKS OUT RESPONDS TO ORSON SCOTT CARD, STILL PLANS TO SKIP ENDER'S GAME

written by Jono on July 10, 2013

The Bill of Rights protects your freedom of speech but it does not protect your right to a blockbuster opening weekend.

NOM Board Member and Ender’s Game author Orson Scott Card’s tone-deaf plea for “tolerance” from pro-gay marriage forces, first given to Entertainment Weekly, struck such a sour note with so many because it seems to miss the point entirely.

This is not and has never been about a much beloved sci-fi novel. Leaving aside the fact that Card thinks gay civil rights didn’t exist in the mid-80s, which is pretty insulting to the post-Stonewall generation frontline against a little something called AIDS—this is about us, here and now. This is about our community refusing to financially support an extreme anti-gay activist. We didn’t read his diary, and we’re not taking dinner table conversation out of context—Orson Scott Card has a very public record of far-right comments against marriage equality as a concept and LGBT folk as human beings, such as:

“But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society—to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.

The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.”

—Orson Scott Card, “Homosexual ‘Marriage’ and Civilization,” 2004

Tell families in 37 states where gay marriage is still illegal that it’s a “moot issue.” Tell citizens in Indiana, where it’s now a criminal act for same-sex couples even to apply for a marriage license. Tell that to the Virginians whose governor wants to recriminalize sodomy. I doubt very much children delegitimized and stigmatized by red-state legislatures across the country are kickin’ back with a cold drink to let historical inevitability do the work now that the Supreme Court has ruled on DOMA. That’s a bizarrely dismissive and defeatist attitude from the same man who swore,

“W]hen 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… 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….”

—Orson Scott Card, The Mormon Times, 2008

Does this look "moot" to anyone?

This plea for tolerance is perhaps a bridge too far, especially from someone who characterized gay marriage as “the bludgeon [The Left] use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools,” (2012). There’s nothing more democratic and tolerant than a consumer boycott, rooted in the ideas of free market accountability. Skip Ender’s Game is about doing what all of us do every day—use facts to determine who and what to support with our money.

Orson Scott Card, we can tolerate your anti-gay activism, your right-wing extremism, your campaign of fear-mongering and insults, but we’re not going to pay you for it. You’ve got the right to express your opinions and beliefs any way you choose—but you don’t have a right to our money.

How many homophobic billboards and absurd “Gathering Storm” ads would a new fortune built off of Ender’s Game lunchboxes buy for NOM?

Now would be an ideal time to hear from Lionsgate, as we know them to be a company of open hearts and allies of LGBT families. Now would be a great time, too, to hear from the cast and creative team behind Ender’s Game who have no connection to the author’s anti-gay activities and who’ve been vocal supporters of gay rights in the past. How do you cut this guy a check?

No matter what happens with Skip Ender’s Game, American voters have already rejected Orson Scott Card's and NOM’s extreme anti-gay agenda. Whether they’ll continue to fund it at the box office remains to be seen.

—Geeks OUT

- See more at: http://geeksout.org/blogs/jono/geeks-out-responds-orson-scott-card-still-plans-skip-enders-game#sthash.e7uSX4ZU.dpuf

[Stone holm]

Freedom of speech is protected from government action -- hence public schools have to be careful what they censor, and governments have to be careful what they punish. However, there is nothing which says that the consumer public has to patronize a person who they feel has insulted or persecuted them. The Marriots understood that pretty well when they immediately took steps to distance themselves from the Prop 8 Crusade as soon as the nudge came fromt the pulpit at General Conference to support it. Sometimes speaking out against a minority and minority rights is profitable -- Chick a fils, or whatever it is called seems to have profited by their stance, Pat Robertson has shored up his base by all of his comments. Economic pressures can cut both ways. There will probably now be people who have no clue what Ender's Game is all about who will now go to the movie just to show solidarity with Card. Personally, I don't give a rip about Card's opinion on gay marriage, I intend to go see Ender's Game because it was one of Card's better books and I have been waiting forever for it to come out. On the other hand, I have never seen Atlas Shrugged and have no intention of ever watching it because I believe that Ayn Rand was just too despicable to be patronized.

[rockpond]

In his plea for tolerance (posted by Daniel in #166), OSC implies that the pro-gay marriage battle has essentially been won and is all but over making his position "moot". This may or may not be true.

The issue I have with his statement is that he is asking for tolerance for those who "disagreed". Note, he used the past tense. But I see no attempt by him to renounce his views against gay marriage not to state that his views have changed. As far as I am aware, he still sits on he board of the National Organization for Marriage.

So, really, he doesn't appear to have disagreed with marriage equality... he still disagrees with marriage equality for homosexuals. And there is nothing wrong nor intolerant with people who don't like his views making the decision to NOT give him their money.