Ender's Game

[jwhitlock]

Well, it looks like the anti-Mormon bigotry of SSM supporters is ramping up to a fine head of foam with the movie release of Ender's Game, based on the novel by Orson Scott Card. As some may be aware, Card has been targeted by SSM supporters with a significant amount of vitriol simply because he has been public about his opposition to SSM.

 

Here's a link from Meridian Magazine about some of the stuff that's going on. This, to me, is another clear indication of how the church and it's members are really going to be treated should SSM become the law of the land.  It's all there for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear to figure out where this is headed.

 

There are good and valid reasons, other than the purely religious ones, for opposing SSM. Those have been discussed in detail on this forum; SSM supporters consistently simply dismiss those reasons out of hand, telling us that our fears about the negative consequences of SSM are unfounded - even as those negative consequences continue to unfold before our very eyes.

 

I don't find anything particularly hateful about what Card has said. Instead, there's a willingness on his part to address the hard realities of the consequences of the kind of social experimentation that SSM entails. However, because of his opposition just to SSM, he is labeled a bigot and homophobe. It's pretty sad for our society that the McCarthyism of the past that we were able to stamp out has reincarnated itself in the guise of entrenched political correctness, where it becomes fashionable and desirable to persecute people for their religious and political viewpoints.

 

Interesting times ahead.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I didn't have reason enough before to see the movie, I certainly do now. I will vote with my pocketbook, as it were.

 

Not that the movie is not good enough to stand on its own. I read the book for the first time earlier this year, and if the book is any indication, the movie will certainly be worth the price of admission.

[california boy]

I personally agree that Orson Scott Card is a bigot and his statements were unbecoming of a member of the church.  I am also a big fan of Orson Scott Cards writings.  I have read almost all of his books and for the most part loved them.  Enders Game is one of his best.  Yes I am going to see the movie.  There is more to a movie and more to Orson Scott Card than just his homophobic statements.  I am more concerned that the movie will not come even close to doing the book justice.  I am rarely pleased with the movie version of a book I love so much.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[Edit: typed this before california boy posted - just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a response to your comment.] I disagree with OSC about same-sex marriage, but anyone who has read Songmaster, The Ships of Earth, or even his essays in proper context (rather than the misleading paraphrasing done by his political detractors) should know that he is not the homophobic bigot some people have made him out to be. (Of course, neither is he the Conservative Right-Winger some Mormons wish he was, so it's a little weird when they start championing him as their hero.) It's more than a little depressing that some extremists from my side of the aisle have manufactured a narrative that turns him into a convenient folk-devil; I've worked for the man, he is not an enemy. I'm going to see Ender's Game tonight, and while I'm keeping my expectations low, I think it'll be a fun time.

Edited November 1, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jwhitlock]

If I didn't have reason enough before to see the movie, I certainly do now. I will vote with my pocketbook, as it were.

 

Not that the movie is not good enough to stand on its own. I read the book for the first time earlier this year, and if the book is any indication, the movie will certainly be worth the price of admission.

 

Ender's game, and the follow on books were great. Card's a very talented writer, and has done some interesting explorations of LDS related scenarios, such as with Folk of the Fringe. It's been interesting to watch how he's evolved over time.

[phaedrus ut]

I really really enjoy Card's novels and I have read the books in the Ender series more than once.  I've read many of the bigoted essays and interviews about homosexuality from Card over the years.  All I can say is that I feel sorry for him to be carrying all that hatred with him for so long.  I'll avoid speculating on the reasons but it does seem to be a strangely important subject matter to him.

 

 

Phaedrus

[jwhitlock]

I personally agree that Orson Scott Card is a bigot and his statements were unbecoming of a member of the church.  I am also a big fan of Orson Scott Cards writings.  I have read almost all of his books and for the most part loved them.  Enders Game is one of his best.  Yes I am going to see the movie.  There is more to a movie and more to Orson Scott Card than just his homophobic statements.  I am more concerned that the movie will not come even close to doing the book justice.  I am rarely pleased with the movie version of a book I love so much.

 

And what, pray tell, is particularly bigoted and homophobic in the statements he has made? Note that I'm looking for statements that apply to the real definitions of those phrases, and not the re-interpretation that SSM supporters place on them in demonizing anyone who opposes SSM.

 

Maybe you can also supply some statements of his that were unbecoming a member of the church.

 

Aside from that, glad to see that you're able to still recognize his talent despite your perspective.

[jwhitlock]

I really really enjoy Card's novels and I have read the books in the Ender series more than once.  I've read many of the bigoted essays and interviews about homosexuality from Card over the years.  All I can say is that I feel sorry for him to be carrying all that hatred with him for so long.  I'll avoid speculating on the reasons but it does seem to be a strangely important subject matter to him.

 

 

Phaedrus

 

Again, any particular details on those statements? Simply opposing SSM doesn't qualify as "bigoted".

[WmLaw]

This, to me, is another clear indication of how the church and it's members are really going to be treated should SSM become the law of the land.  It's all there for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear to figure out where this is headed.

 

 

And what does this indicate to you so clearly?  He uses his freedom of speech to oppose SSM.  Some supporters use their same right to boycott the movie.  Doesn't seem too harsh.

 

By the way, Ender's Game is one of my favorite books and I'll be seeing the movie in the theater.  

[jwhitlock]

[Edit: typed this before california boy posted - just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a response to your comment.] I disagree with OSC about same-sex marriage, but anyone who has read Songmaster, The Ships of Earth, or even his essays in proper context (rather than the misleading paraphrasing done by his political detractors) should know that he is not the homophobic bigot some people have made him out to be. (Of course, neither is he the Conservative Right-Winger some Mormons wish he was, so it's a little weird when they start championing him as their hero.) It's more than a little depressing that some extremists from my side of the aisle have manufactured a narrative that turns him into a convenient folk-devil; I've worked for the man, he is not an enemy. I'm going to see Ender's Game tonight, and while I'm keeping my expectations low, I think it'll be a fun time.

 

I'd be interested in hearing more of your insight on him since you've worked with him. It's been my impression from what he's written that he's clearly does not hate homosexuals, but does oppose certain things such as SSM which have made him a public target.

 

And I do agree that keeping expectations about the movie low is a good idea.  The books are always so much better, but maybe the CGI effects will make up for it...

[jwhitlock]

And what does this indicate to you so clearly?  He uses his freedom of speech to oppose SSM.  Some supporters use their same right to boycott the movie.  Doesn't seem too harsh.

 

By the way, Ender's Game is one of my favorite books and I'll be seeing the movie in the theater.  

 

Boycotting the movie is a bit different than the vitriol I've seen directed at Card.  Looking at his actual statements on SSM, it is difficult for me to reconcile accusations of him being a bigot and homophobe with what he really is saying. It's more of a reflection on the lengths some SSM supporters will go to in order to force SSM on the rest of us.

[phaedrus ut]

Again, any particular details on those statements? Simply opposing SSM doesn't qualify as "bigoted".

 

In 1990 in writing The Hypocrites of Homosexuality in Sunstone Magazine he said that anti sodomy laws should remain on the books

"to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

and here are a few more

 

 

"we recognize the principle that those who have as little control over their own behavior as small children should be treated as compassionately -- yet firmly -- as we treat small children."

"What we do with small children is to establish clear boundaries and offer swift but mild punishment for crossing them. As their capacity to understand and obey increases, the boundaries broaden but the consequences of crossing them become more severe"

 

 

"The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible"

 

There are dozens more of bigoted comments by him that have nothing to do with marriage equality. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[Buckeye]

I'm going with my 12-year old son tonight.  Promised I'd take him when he finished the book.  He hasn't been this excited in a while. 

[cinepro]

I wonder if the people who are protesting "Ender's Game" based on their opposition to the morals of one of the filmmakers take similar actions every time Roman Polanski releases a film...

[jwhitlock]

 

In 1990 in writing The Hypocrites of Homosexuality in Sunstone Magazine he said that anti sodomy laws should remain on the books

and here are a few more

 

There are dozens more of bigoted comments by him that have nothing to do with marriage equality. 

Phaedrus

 

I'll respond later after I've had a chance to read the article, though I do note it was written in 1990 when society's viewpoints on the subject mirrored Card's in many ways.

[WmLaw]

Well, it looks like the anti-Mormon bigotry of SSM supporters is ramping up to a fine head of foam 

p.s.  you were quick to apply the terms of "anti-Mormon" and "bigotry" to those SSM supporters.  

 

I think its entirely possible that they are opposed to his views on SSM, and they are not necessarily anti-mormons or bigots.

Edited November 1, 2013 by WmLaw

[Buckeye]

I wonder if the people who are protesting "Ender's Game" based on their opposition to the morals of one of the filmmakers take similar actions every time Roman Polanski releases a film...

 

When I heard of this boycott the first thing I thought of was the evangelicals who boycotted DisneyWorld a few years back because Disney was becoming gay-friendly (I think Disney had a "gay day" or something like that). Funny how the far ends of the spectrum can sometimes circle around and join together.

[phaedrus ut]

I'll respond later after I've had a chance to read the article, though I do note it was written in 1990 when society's viewpoints on the subject mirrored Card's in many ways.

 

If society mirrored OSC's opinion back then he wouldn't have been criticized about it even in conservative Mormon circles.  And yes it was written in 1990 but as I've mentioned there are dozens of similar quotes about the subject. 

 

But lets open this subject to a bigger discussion why has homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, been so important to him for 3+ decades?

 

Phaedrus

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

In 1990 in writing The Hypocrites of Homosexuality in Sunstone Magazine he said that anti sodomy laws should remain on the books

 

A better link, with a clarifying introduction by Card (containing information that was common knowledge to those of us following the debate as it escalated due to later Rhinotimes essays) can be found here. This is the infamous quote everyone brings up but that practically no one bothers to actually read correctly. The misunderstanding hinges on the word 'should'. (I know this seems nit-picky, but bear with me.)

 

Card is not saying that laws against homosexual behavior should, must, have-to-be kept on the books. He is not calling for them to be kept on the books. He is using the word 'should' in a sense that is clarified if one inserts an [only] after it. "Laws against homosexual behavior should [only] remain on the books not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but [only] to be used when necessary."

 

In context, he is recognizing the law which had recently been upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, and calling for it to generally not be enforced -- ie, the exact opposite of what people have been claiming he said. He's trying to tell people not to use the law as an excuse to start witch hunts. In 1990, writing to a Conservative Mormon audience, that's pretty moderate, if not Liberal. (Sorry for the bolding, btw; I don't mean to sound impatient, if I do. I'm just trying to draw attention to the incorrect way that far too many people parse this sentence.) 

 

As he writes in his preface:

 

My call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.

 

Anyone who has read his fiction should be able to see that Card has not been overly concerned with homosexuality; he's far more concerned with community, and marriage, and children, and the possible effects same-sex marriage might have on those things. Again, to be clear, I personally disagree with him and support same-sex marriage, but I grew up around real bigots and homophobes, and Card is just not one of them. I don't know if he consciously planned it that way, but I don't think it's an accident that [spoiler alert] the homosexual character in Songmaster who is cruelly abused for taking part in unorthodox sexual practices is named 'Josif'.    

 

From a recent interview: 

 

It’s easier to write science fiction than to take seriously the silliness on both left and right, I have to say. ... Both belief systems are really not philosophies; they are really incoherent and self-contradictory. I’m not interested in that. I couldn’t make them work as fiction. I couldn’t invent those as political systems that would be believable in a science fiction universe. Only because they really exist are they believable, because if 30 years ago I had written a story in which either the far left or the far right philosophies were, the audiences would go, "Nobody would ever believe that. That’s just too silly. They couldn’t hold those two ideas simultaneously.” 

 

From another:

 

I have only contempt for people who slavishly follow any of the popular political “philosophies” of today, since they are all a mass of self-contradictory and self-congratulatory confusion. Left and Right are so riddled with complacent dogmas that contradict both experience and each other that I cannot comfortably say I belong with any of them. Nobody listens to ideas anymore; nobody follows any process of analysis except to buttress opinions that were arrived at through membership in a group rather than any apparent thought process. [...]

I’m treated as if I hate homosexuals, which is absurd. I really do have close homosexual friends, and we have never had a problem. That sounds like the “some of my best friends are” cliche, but it’s the simple truth. I work in the theatre, and some of my best friends really are gay.

 

But the body politic has never been able to have a rational conversation about that, or anything lately. Nothing can be discussed rationally. Everything is just about my team versus your team. We’re all caught up in a huge football game. With rabid fans.

 

And in fact my main opposition to gay marriage isn’t with gay marriage itself, it’s that they’re going to try to enforce propaganda for it in schools, and that’s going to run up against religious freedom, and that’s where the real, bloody conflict is going to come. And the result I fear is going to be a massive takeover of our country by the extreme right wing. Because while I have had plenty of opportunity to see the left at its ugliest, having been under attack by the Taliban of the left, I am also deeply acquainted with the Taliban of the right. I fear for my country when they take over. We haven’t had such divisive rhetoric in our country, such absolute hatred expressed by both sides, since just before the Civil War.

 

Again-again, I disagree with Card about gay marriage, and find some of his rhetoric unhelpful (comparing both the Left and the Right to the Taliban? Really?). But that doesn't mean I can't recognize that he's not a homophobic bigot, he just disagrees with me about an important and morally complicated issue. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Buckeye]

Jeremy, that is really helpful to know.  Thank you very much. 

[phaedrus ut]

Card is not saying that laws against homosexual behavior should, must, have-to-be kept on the books. He is not calling for them to be kept on the books. He is using the word 'should' in a sense that is clarified if one inserts an [only] after it. "Laws against homosexual behavior should [only] remain on the books not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but [only] to be used when necessary."

 

In context, he is recognizing the law which had recently been upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, and calling for it to generally not be enforced -- ie, the exact opposite of what people have been claiming he said. He's trying to tell people not to use the law as an excuse to start witch hunts. In 1990, writing to a Conservative Mormon audience, that's pretty moderate, if not Liberal. (Sorry for the bolding, btw; I don't mean to sound impatient, if I do. I'm just trying to draw attention to the incorrect way that far too many people parse this sentence.) 

 

Again he didn't want them on the books to never be enforced he wants them to be used "when necessary".  Even in his clarification he still wants the laws on the books as a tool to punish homosexuals.  Even his more recent toned down rhetoric is still bigoted.  For example in his 2004 essay Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization he wrote:

 

"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."

 

 

I actually think he uses the anti-marriage equality rhetoric to as the least offensive approach to further his ideas. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[Kevin Christensen]

Just last night I was talking with two friends who first entered the homosexual world through rape, molestation, and abuse.  And we discussed how to go about living normally.  It's not easy but it can be done.  It involves 12 step recovery, and consideration of the possibility that addiction could be a better explanation for compulsive behaviors than "born that way" which does not leave open as many options for change.  Hence, I think, a tendency to silence on that point in the general media. The issue is not whether such things happen.  They do.  The issue is who gets to decide which peoples' experience and attitudes gets put forward as paradigmatic.  A lot of the folk-devil creation (for that term, see Greg Smith's essay

here http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf )

 

 involving Scott involves which quotes to select and emphasize in order to best further the political agenda by demonizing him as "other".  So stories with sympathetic gay characters who are not at all demonized are not considered, let alone put out there with exclaimation points and calls for gathering up torches and pitchforks and storming the castle to kill the unholy monster.  His personal knowledge of invidividuals whose lives sound like the men I talked with last night should be suppressed as not to be even thought of.

 

I found a lot of resonance between Smith on folk devils, and Rene GIrard on scapegoats.  It's sad.  The important thing in fanning such fires is that the innocence of the accused should never be even considered.  And it's also very important before accusing to be seen as defending the innocent.

 

I hope to see Ender's Game tomorrow up at the Pittsburgh Mills iMax.  I read the original story when it came out in Analog a long long time ago, and sold a short story to Scott about a year later.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[california boy]

Just last night I was talking with two friends who first entered the homosexual world through rape, molestation, and abuse.  And we discussed how to go about living normally.  It's not easy but it can be done.  It involves 12 step recovery, and consideration of the possibility that addiction could be a better explanation for compulsive behaviors than "born that way" which does not leave open as many options for change.  Hence, I think, a tendency to silence on that point in the general media. The issue is not whether such things happen.  They do.  The issue is who gets to decide which peoples' experience and attitudes gets put forward as paradigmatic.  A lot of the folk-devil creation (for that term, see Greg Smith's essay

here http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf )

 

 involving Scott involves which quotes to select and emphasize in order to best further the political agenda by demonizing him as "other".  So stories with sympathetic gay characters who are not at all demonized are not considered, let alone put out there with exclaimation points and calls for gathering up torches and pitchforks and storming the castle to kill the unholy monster.  His personal knowledge of invidividuals whose lives sound like the men I talked with last night should be suppressed as not to be even thought of.

 

I found a lot of resonance between Smith on folk devils, and Rene GIrard on scapegoats.  It's sad.  The important thing in fanning such fires is that the innocence of the accused should never be even considered.  And it's also very important before accusing to be seen as defending the innocent.

 

I hope to see Ender's Game tomorrow up at the Pittsburgh Mills iMax.  I read the original story when it came out in Analog a long long time ago, and sold a short story to Scott about a year later.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Oh this is a good post.  Let's see what we can do to further the "fact" that gay men are created through rape.  Is that how women become straight as well?  If we rape a lesbian will she become straight?   Just listen to yourself.  Do you really think these kinds of posts is what the brethren are encouraging members to post on the internet?  

[halconero]

Oh this is a good post. Let's see what we can do to further the "fact" that gay men are created through rape. Is that how women become straight as well? If we rape a lesbian will she become straight? Just listen to yourself. Do you really think these kinds of posts is what the brethren are encouraging members to post on the internet?

I think his point is that sexuality is so much more than biology, but is a mixture of biology, personal experiences, and social environments.

[teddyaware]

Oh this is a good post.  Let's see what we can do to further the "fact" that gay men are created through rape.  Is that how women become straight as well?  If we rape a lesbian will she become straight?   Just listen to yourself.  Do you really think these kinds of posts is what the brethren are encouraging members to post on the internet?  

 

Why not let folks speak what's on their mind without the condescension and sarcasm? Did not the two gentlemen mentioned in the post you mock admit they were sexually abused (most likely when young)? The fact that the abuse occurred, and both of these abused individuals are now gay could cause any thoughtful person to wonder if there's a connection. Why presume it's ridiculous to consider the possible connection of sexual abuse to later sexual acting out by those so abused? To me such a possibility seems a reasonable thing to consider. Surely, not all gays were sexually abused when they were young, but it would be interesting to know what percentage of the gay community, both male and female, actually were victims of sexual abuse. And it would also be interesting to know how many victims of sexual abuse come out of the abuse experience emotionally and psychologically unscathed. 

Edited November 2, 2013 by teddyaware