Ender's Game

[Kenngo1969]

I did read what Jeremy WISHED Card had said.  And yes, I have read a lot of backpeddling by Card ...

Backpeddling?  What's that?  Is that when a salesman goes door-to-door by walking backward?  (Sorry ; couldn't resist!  Carry on!)

[Stone holm]

I think the actions of the haters are completely despicable. It is a movie, and a good one that I will likely see again and buy the dvd. I could not possibly abhor the actions of these plunkers more.  I learned that he produced a trilogy with Ender's Game as the beginning and I am looking for the other two now in ebook format so I can magnify the print.

 

While I went to the movie, the group that went included my gay brother, and thought it was a great movie, I can understand and sympathize with those who boycott.  Card put his celebrity status out there to support his political position, when he did that he had to have known that he legitimately opened himself up for a negative reaction and boycott of his work.  Both sides have been involved in this type of protest.  When it became clear that the Village People were gay their was a boycott by certain groups, and when a member of the Dixie Chicks spoke out they were obliterated as a Country Western singing group.

[EllenMaksoud]

While I went to the movie, the group that went included my gay brother, and thought it was a great movie, I can understand and sympathize with those who boycott.  Card put his celebrity status out there to support his political position, when he did that he had to have known that he legitimately opened himself up for a negative reaction and boycott of his work.  Both sides have been involved in this type of protest.  When it became clear that the Village People were gay their was a boycott by certain groups, and when a member of the Dixie Chicks spoke out they were obliterated as a Country Western singing group.

Yes, I have experienced hate first hand, and I did not even make public comment. I loved, love and still love Dixie Chicks. Perhaps Brother Card will begin to see the cost of using ones name in public.

[Stone holm]

Yes, I have experienced hate first hand, and I did not even make public comment. I loved, love and still love Dixie Chicks. Perhaps Brother Card will begin to see the cost of using ones name in public.

 

We have free speech, but that does not mean there are no consequences in exercising it.  We have always recognized that public opinion can and does have an influence in the market place -- no one would have really cared what Card's opinion was except for the fact that he had celebrity status as an author -- he was sought out by political groups for that reason.

[EllenMaksoud]

We have free speech, but that does not mean there are no consequences in exercising it.  We have always recognized that public opinion can and does have an influence in the market place -- no one would have really cared what Card's opinion was except for the fact that he had celebrity status as an author -- he was sought out by political groups for that reason.

Perhaps this will make him wiser.

[Daniel2]

... aaand, this is why trying to talk about this issue has become so difficult. Guys, I really don't like the sarcasm and condescension that california boy's arguments been subjected to in this thread. I agree with a lot of what he has to say myself. At the same time, california boy, I think I've demonstrated that Card's writing is indeed being misread (particularly the interpretation of the infamous 'should' passage) and have provided evidence that is not based on any "wishful thinking" on my part or "back-pedaling" on Card's part.

I should also clarify for everyone here that I'm basing my arguments on information that is publicly available and verifiable, and I have no special 'insider' status or insight just because I worked for OSC on his online magazine a few years ago - I traded a few emails with him, nothing more, and we didn't discuss this issue personally, so please don't use me as some trump card to try and win an argument based on my supposed authority, which I do not actually have.

This whole thing is immensely frustrating, because I support same-sex marriage, and yet at the same time I am also dismayed at some of the overgeneralizations people on my side of the debate have made about Card. It proves him correct when he says we're caught in a football game of competing teams who don't examine ideas. Simplifying everything into an easy black and white choice doesn't help anyone. I'm not on anyone's side here, because it seems like people are pretty much just talking past each other at this point. We can be good people and disagree about morally complicated issues without being deluded or evil.

Meanwhile, though I have numerous fanboy quibbles, Ender's Game was a good movie.

I am surprised that anyone could deny that Card's editorial in Mormon Times in 2008 is clearly bigoted, by definition of the word, not to mention undeniably and understandably offensive towards gays and lesbians. IMO, the full context only makes it's bigotry all the more clear--not less so. I do not know and cannot speak to the man, but here are his words, including a call to overthrow, by any means necessary, any government that recognizes marriage equality for same-sex couples:

Orson Scott Card: State job is not to redefine marriage

By Orson Scott Card, For the Deseret News

Published: Thu, July 24 12:00 a.m. MDT

Editor's note: This personal opinion column appeared in the print edition of Mormon Times, a features section of the Deseret News, on Thursday, July 24, 2008. The writer's opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Deseret News or its owner, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More information on the LDS Church's position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage can be found atmormonsandgays.org.

THE FIRST AND greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it — but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing — making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups — RICO laws, for instance.

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage.

Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

If the government passed a law declaring that grey was now green, and asphalt was specifically designated as a botanical organism, would that make all our streets into "greenery" and all our parking lots into "parks"?

If a court declared that from now on, "blind" and "sighted" would be synonyms, would that mean that it would be safe for blind people to drive cars?

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

This is a permanent fact of nature.

(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.

That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

Married people are doing something that is very, very hard — to combine the lives of a male and female, with all their physical and personality differences, into a stable relationship that persists across time.

When they are able to create children together, married people then provide the role models for those children to learn how to become a man or a woman, and what to expect of their spouse when they themselves marry.

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.

When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.

Some marriages are better than others; some fail utterly because of the malfeasance of one or both of the partners.

That only makes it all the more vital that the whole society combine to help husbands and wives succeed at marriage.

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others — even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.

If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible — or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.

Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions — even, in many cases, death.

What used to be informally protected by the customs of villages and tribes is now supposedly protected by governments and laws.

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization — including the custom of marriage.

Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.

We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it's a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.

Divorce is "no-fault," easily obtained on any pretext.

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for marriage.

Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children — while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

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.

Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.

Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.

It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn — your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

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

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

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

Orson Scott Card is a writer of nonfiction and fiction, from LDS works to popular fiction. "In the Village" appears Thursdays in the Deseret News. A longer version of this column is available at MormonTimes.com. Leave feedback for Card online at www.nauvoo.com/contact_desnews.html.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Daniel2

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I disagree with Card (particularly about basing the male-female distinction on XY and XX, since of course western society was splitting people into binary sexes long before chromosomes were discovered in the late 1800's and I think gender is far more ambiguous) but I don't see any bigotry in that article. Just disagreement.

 

And despite another common (willful?) misreading, Card was not calling to overthrow anything, he was warning against a possible backlash -- the Right Wing take-over he has been worried about, as I quoted from an interview earlier in this thread. If one parses the rhetoric in that article correctly, we see that the people calling for the overthrow are not Card; in point of fact, Card's position is quite explicitly stated in another article from that same time period:
 

Unload that Gun

 

At that point, what can we do? I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.

 

Please read a history of the French Revolution. And then the Russian Revolution. Armed rebellion does not restore constitutional government, it most likely replaces one dictatorship with a worse one.

 

And while you're at it, read a history of the U.S. Civil War and decide if you think that's a good idea. I don't.

So the infamous 'overthrow' quote is yet another one that has been relentlessly taken out of context by Card's political detractors. Again, I disagree with Card, but spinning his words to make him look more extreme than he is doesn't convince anyone who isn't already on our side. It's downright embarrassing to see my side turning the man who wrote Songmaster and Treason and Homecoming (all stories with extremely sympathetic gay characters, the first two written long before it was politically-correct to include them) into a folk-devil, when I'm far more concerned about the real homophobes and bigots, who he is frankly right to warn about. I've "heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion" too, and it's scary. And to be clear, he has issued a statement on his website that states point-blank basically everything I have said here:
 

Claim: OSC wants states to keep sodomy and anti-homosexual laws on the books.

 

Quote in Context: The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers vs. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. OSC wrote an essay in 1990 (23 years ago) to a conservative Mormon audience that, at the time, would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, his call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at the time. In the same article he called for them not to be enforced. Within that context this was the liberal and tolerant view - for which OSC was criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." The law was not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003. Now that the law has changed, OSC has no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than he wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.

 

Claim: OSC stated that gay marriage "marks the end of democracy in America."

 

Quote in Context: OSC did not say that gay marriage marked the end of democracy. The misquote is from The Mormon Times on July 24, 2008 and is titled "State job is not to redefine marriage." It concerns the process in which activist judges overturn the will of the voters. Gay marriage is used as the example. Here is the quote in context:

 

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

 

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

 

The pretext is that state constitutions require it - but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past fifteen years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

 

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

 

Claim: OSC is calling for a heterosexual overthrow of the government.

 

Quote in Context: OSC, a long-time student of history, was warning what could happen when change is forced too quickly - a warning about how human society has always worked and will continue to work. OSC is more concerned about living in a society of the Puritan back-lash than in the society that agrees together, after much civil discussion, how to change their society.

 

The quote used is from the same article "State job is not to redefine marriage" from July 24, 2008. Notice that the "call for revolution" is put in the mouth of a fictional, future citizen - not OSC.

 

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

 

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

 

Quote in Context: Here is a quote from the same 2008 time-period that seems to be overlooked. From a Mormon Times October 23, 2008 article entitled "Disagree but don't be unkind." Written to a conservative, Mormon audience.

 

We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who marry are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

 

But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

 

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they call me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."

 

Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we are being uniform.

 

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much.

 

If we must get into whether something is bigoted 'by definition', a quick appeal to the infallible authority of Merriam-Webster gives us:

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. 

 

I just don't see that applying to Card. Janis Ian (noted musician and open homosexual) wrote in her autobiography that when she was dealing with a major illness: 

 

I was also learning to accept acts of kindness. There was a small article in the paper about my being ill; for weeks, strangers left food on my doorstep. Orson Scott Card, a writer I greatly admired, e-mailed to ask why I hadn't been in touch. I told him I was sick, and needed to be on the couch rather than at my desk. Two days later, a laptop arrived, with Scott's return address on the package.

 

To me, that doesn't sound like something a bigot would do. In a thread on her website forum, she further explains:

 

Orson Scott Card and me

 

Okay, I give up. I'm sick of people sending me links to a year-old blog by Scott ranting about gay marriage, and demanding to know why I don't at the least stop reading/visiting/talking to him, or at the most don't burn all his books and take a public stance against him.

 

For the record, most of the people who send me those links don't know how to spell, or use grammar.

 

Meanwhile, here is my standard response, in an exchange that took place over a year ago with an ostensible "fan" who won't give their name.

 

Please, if someone asks you why I'm friends with him or still read him, feel free to pass this on instead of sending it to me...

From: Anonymous Anonymous [mailto:uplift23@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:36 PM

To: janisianmail@earthlink.net

Subject: Orson Scott Card, really?

 

Janis, I love your work. But I'm shocked that you're spending time with Orson Scott Card (mentioned on WUNC). Truly shocked. The man is a bigot, plain and simple, deeply and crazily homophobic. His editorial in the Mormon Times is especially lunatic: http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586 It's not only borderline insane on its own terms, but then there's the delicious irony of a Mormon - a member of a Church that was founded 150 years by a polygamist - lecturing anyone else about the sanctity of marriage. Especially using such atrocious logic and at least one flat-out lie ("it is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortion").

 

Do I need more tolerance of the man? Were you unaware of his homophobia? (And if so, should I be sorry that I drew your attention to it?) If you can change his mind, then terrific - but I am a bit mystified as to why you'd give this bigot any of your time. You don't need to justify it to me, of course. I just was shocked and surprised. I'd be interested in what you have to say, though I don't expect a reponse.

 

Best.

 

Well, it's awkward to respond to someone who doesn't sign their real name...

 

Let me say first that I consider Scott a close friend; the time we don't have together physically, we make up through the heart. If I had to lean on someone, or needed an ear, I would think of him. And if you've read my autobiography, you'll know that in a time of great trouble, he was very, very, good to me. 

 

By the way, the gay community was nowhere to be seen when I was at my lowest. 

 

Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote.

 

Given that he's a devout Mormon, of course he doesn't think gay marriage is a good thing. Let's face it - a lot of people feel that way! His article - your URL below - speaks more to the courts and the separation of church and state than my own relationship with my partner - or for that matter, Scott's other gay friends.

 

And speaking of my partner... Scott has never treated my relationship, or my partner, with anything but the utmost respect. We've been welcomed into his home, invited to his childrens' weddings, sent announcements of births and deaths - all to both of us, as a family unit. His children regard us as a family unit, and I've never heard or felt the slightest breath of censure from any one of them.

 

Scott's also a Republican, while I'm a Democrat - and we manage to discuss our differences over the table without ever getting loud or crazy. Personally, I think if more people did that, the world would be a better place.

 

I'm sorry you appear ready to discount or avoid a writer of Card's stature, because I consider Scott one of the finest writers of my generation, period. His short stories about musicians and music are the best I've ever read. What a pity, to deny yourself and your friends the illumination that level of artistry can provide!

 

I suppose we'd also have to discount Wagner because of the Nazi connection? James Joyce and Ezra Pound for their anti-Semitism? Thomas Jefferson, who believed slavery was God-intended? Most, if not all, of the founding fathers, who considered black Africans sub-human? 

 

Continuing in that vein, we should probably discount Picasso, a sexist pig. And Beethoven, a royalist and a snob if you ever met one - and if memory serves, an anti-Semite. 

 

Not to mention the current pope, who's called homosexuality as big a threat to the world as global warming, and warned that it would destroy civilization as we know it if gays were allowed to marry. 

 

Should I discount every faithful Catholic writer, dump Tennessee Williams, Madeleine L'Engel, Flannery O'Connor, because their religion's figurehead is a lunatic? 

 

Sorry if you're Catholic... <grin>

 

Scratch any artist, in any form, and you'll find things you don't like. You can't judge art by the artist; it has to be judged seperately, on its own merits. The artist himself has to be taken in the context of his times, and of his own culture, including his religion. So long as that art isn't being used to actively cause or promote harm to someone, as in a "Triumph of the Will," I don't think anyone has the right to judge the work by the artist's personal beliefs.

 

But that's my own take. 

 

Just for the record, as a gay person who campaigned for and voted for Obama - Obama doesn't think we should be able to marry, either. For many of the same reasons. And I'm sure you're aware of his former pastor's views on not just gays, but whites, and Jews. I have no idea what Obama thinks about gay people, and I fear it's "hate the sin, love the sinner," which I find condescending and disrespectful in the extreme. I'm still glad he's president, and I still think he's an honorable man.

 

Again, I'd hate to think anyone avoided great art just because they disagreed with the artist...

 

On a last note, to say someone is "crazy" or a "lunatic" because they deeply disagree with you, well, that's just as narrow, isn't it?

 

Janis

Edited November 6, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Daniel2]

I disagree with Card (particularly about basing the male-female distinction on XY and XX, since of course western society was splitting people into binary sexes long before chromosomes were discovered in the late 1800's and I think gender is far more ambiguous) but I don't see any bigotry in that article. Just disagreement.

And despite another common (willful?) misreading, Card was not calling to overthrow anything, he was warning against a possible backlash -- the Right Wing take-over he has been worried about, as I quoted from an interview earlier in this thread. If one parses the rhetoric in that article correctly, we see that the people calling for the overthrow are not Card; in point of fact, Card's position is quite explicitly stated in another article from that same time period:

So the infamous 'overthrow' quote is yet another one that has been relentlessly taken out of context by Card's political detractors. Again, I disagree with Card, but spinning his words to make him look more extreme than he is doesn't convince anyone who isn't already on our side. It's downright embarrassing to see my side turning the man who wrote Songmaster and Treason and Homecoming (all stories with extremely sympathetic gay characters, the first two written long before it was politically-correct to include them) into a folk-devil, when I'm far more concerned about the real homophobes and bigots, who he is frankly right to warn about. I've "heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion" too, and it's scary. And to be clear, he has issued a statement on his website that states point-blank basically everything I have said here:

If we must get into whether something is bigoted 'by definition', a quick appeal to the infallible authority of Merriam-Webster gives us:

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I just don't see that applying to Card. Janis Ian (noted musician and open homosexual) wrote in her autobiography that when she was dealing with a major illness:

To me, that doesn't sound like something a bigot would do. In a thread on her website forum, she further explains:

Interesting. That is my understanding of the term "bigotry," as well, and I'm truly astonished that you don't see that editorial as being a textbook example of someone who "is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Having gay friends or showing kindness to a sick gay person isn't evidence that someone doesn't hold bigoted views any more than having black friends or being nice to black people is.

The source you quoted doesn't give context---it omits the full context and offers an apologetic spin--something that occurred only when his views began to hurt the film's marketing.

While we agree on marriage equality, I see your rationalizations and apologetics attempting to defend these editorials by Mr. Card, a board member of NOM, as indefensible.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Daniel2

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

He's not a member of NOM anymore, actually. 

[awyatt]

Interesting. That is my understanding of the term "bigotry," as well, and I'm truly astonished that you don't see that editorial as being a textbook example of someone who "is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

I'm sure Jeremy can respond on his own, but is a bigot to be judged by words (which can easily be misunderstood by a public who has an astonishing ability to completely miss nuance) or by actions (which can seldom be misunderstood)? You (and a couple of others on this thread) have had first-hand reports of Scott's actions which belie charges of bigotry, yet cling to the tarring and feathering despite such evidence.

 

Such an approach seems uncharitable at best. Surely you would rather be judged by your actions than by your words?

The source you quoted doesn't give context---it omits the full context and offers an apologetic spin--something that occurred only when his views began to hurt the film's marketing.

While we agree on marriage equality, I see your rationalizations and apologetics attempting to defend these editorials by Mr. Card, a board member of NOM, as indefensible.

To label someone's comments as "rationalizations and apologetics" simply because they disagree with your assessment of the situation -- a disagreement borne of their first-hand knowledge of the person at point -- seems to be equally uncharitable. It also borders on hypocrisy since you apparently don't see your own stances as equally rationalistic or apologetic.

Understand that I'm not dismissing your position, only your handling of a position put forth by others.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

I am surprised that anyone could deny that Card's editorial in Mormon Times in 2008 is clearly bigoted, by definition of the word, not to mention undeniably and understandably offensive towards gays and lesbians.

 

Card's column is vigorous, pointed, perhaps even polemical. Yes it no doubt offended a lot of people depending on their political or social bent. But it is not bigoted, clearly or otherwise.

 

IMO, the full context only makes it's bigotry all the more clear--not less so. I do not know and cannot speak to the man, but here are his words, including a call to overthrow, by any means necessary, any government that recognizes marriage equality for same-sex couples:

 

You are twisting his words. What Card is doing is decrying an activist judiciary that does not recognize the expressed will of the people. He is extrapolating on what government might look like in the future if such a tendency is left unchecked.

 

It is that kind of a government, the kind that he warns of in the future, i.e. one that makes America "a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, " that he pledges to help bring down.

 

We don't have such a government yet. If we ever do, I may be right at his side.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

He's not a member of NOM awwreeeee444ee44req ss33aa+q1qq1111+nymore, actually.

I'm aware of that, and didn't mean to imply he still is--but his views in the editorial certainly reflect the period of time that he was working with NOM. I'm glad he isn't anymore.

By participating in NOM and writing the editorials as he did, his actions on a national level--at least during that time question--were bigoted,no matter how many gay friends he has?

I hope he has changed.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Daniel2

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You've asserted it, but I just don't see that you've demonstrated bigotry. I notice a bit was snipped off the definition I gave earlier: "especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Janis Ian is among the group Card disagrees with; he has given her a computer as a gift, invited her and her partner to his home (photo), by all accounts treated them with kindness and regards them as friends. Is that 'hatred and intolerance'? The real homophobic bigots I know usually wouldn't even talk with a person they knew was gay, let alone let them in their house. 

 

Edit: I guess what concerns me here is how quickly people from both the Right and the Left are to jump and attach whatever derogatory labels their side has to their opponents. The exclusionary function of the rhetoric is practically identical, the only difference being who it's leveled at. I mean, I'm used to people dismissing me as a neo-orthodox feminist; apparently if I'm not sufficiently rightwing, I can't love Joseph Smith (who was, um ... a democrat). If I'm not a conservative Evangelical, I clearly don't love God. Etc. On the other hand, if I defend someone who's more conservative than me from accusations of bigotry (Card, DCP), then the rightwing pops up and starts championing my words, even if they've disagreed with me in the past and called me names that function exactly as their equivalent leftwing epithets do.

 

If we don't notice when it's happening on our own side, then we become what we're arguing against and the whole cycle of dismissive labeling and prejudice rolls right around again. (For my part, I take it seriously when the Book of Mormon teaches that a Zion society will have no '-ites'.) Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, and it doesn't help our side to lump everyone into the same category. Pro-choicers are generally not Baby Killers; pro-lifers generally do not Hate Women, and feminists generally do not Hate Men. Etc. There are some extremists who label themselves by all these names, but that doesn't mean we should use the label as an excuse to treat everyone who claims it as an extremist. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Daniel2]

You've asserted it, but I just don't see that you've demonstrated bigotry. I notice a bit was snipped off the definition I gave earlier: "especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Janis Ian is among the group Card disagrees with; he has given her a computer as a gift, invited her and her partner to his home (photo), by all accounts treated them with kindness and regards them as friends. Is that 'hatred and intolerance'? The real homophobic bigots I know usually wouldn't even talk with a person they knew was gay, let alone let them in their house.

Edit: I guess what concerns me here is how quickly people from both the Right and the Left are to jump and attach whatever derogatory labels their side has to their opponents. The exclusionary function of the rhetoric is practically identical, the only difference being who it's leveled at. I mean, I'm used to people dismissing me as a neo-orthodox feminist; apparently if I'm not sufficiently rightwing, I can't love Joseph Smith (who was, um ... a democrat). If I'm not a conservative Evangelical, I clearly don't love God. Etc. On the other hand, if I defend someone who's more conservative than me from accusations of bigotry (Card, DCP), then the rightwing pops up and starts championing my words, even if they've disagreed with me in the past and called me names that function exactly as their equivalent leftwing epithets do.

If we don't notice when it's happening on our own side, then we become what we're arguing against and the whole cycle of dismissive labeling and prejudice rolls right around again. (For my part, I take it seriously when the Book of Mormon teaches that a Zion society will have no '-ites'.) Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, and it doesn't help our side to lump everyone into the same category. Pro-choicers are generally not Baby Killers; pro-lifers generally do not Hate Women, and feminists generally do not Hate Men. Etc. There are some extremists who label themselves by all these names, but that doesn't mean we should use the label as an excuse to treat everyone who claims it as an extremist.

As I understand it, the use of the term "especially" in the definition means the rest of that sentence is superfluous to the central part of the definition. People who promote bigoted ideals can and often are nice to people on a personal level. "Niceness" doesn't disqualify someone from promoting bigoted views, insofar as they are still intolerant of others.

Fwiw, if it helps me explain better, I don't believe Mr. Card is "hateful," but I believe his views definitely are bigoted. Bigoted and hateful are not interchangeable, though all-too-often, they are inaccurately and unfortunately used as such.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Daniel2

[Stone holm]

I am surprised that anyone could deny that Card's editorial in Mormon Times in 2008 is clearly bigoted, by definition of the word, not to mention undeniably and understandably offensive towards gays and lesbians. IMO, the full context only makes it's bigotry all the more clear--not less so. I do not know and cannot speak to the man, but here are his words, including a call to overthrow, by any means necessary, any government that recognizes marriage equality for same-sex couples:

I didn't read anything I would necessarily call bigoted, right wing hyperbolic rant , yes. Possibly fairly stupid as to his understanding of the Constitution and the judiciary, bigoted? Probably not.

[jwhitlock]

As I understand it, the use of the term "especially" in the definition means the rest of that sentence is superfluous to the central part of the definition. People who promote bigoted ideals can and often are nice to people on a personal level. "Niceness" doesn't disqualify someone from promoting bigoted views, insofar as they are still intolerant of others.

Fwiw, if it helps me explain better, I don't believe Mr. Card is "hateful," but I believe his views definitely are bigoted. Bigoted and hateful are not interchangeable, though all-too-often, they are inaccurately and unfortunately used as such.

 

I agree with Scott; after reading Card's articles, I find them passionate and direct, but I would not call them bigoted.

 

On the other hand, here's an article from HuffPo by "Social Justice Activist" Murray Lipp basically calling for the suppression of religion and heterosexuality, which he blames as the source of ongoing homophobia which appears (according to him) to be rampant and out of control in our society.  Of course, Lipp's bigotry is justified as a response against pervasive homophobia and bigotry directed at gays.  It is clear that the SOP for gay activists is that anything can be justified - including gay bigotry against straights - as long as you can smear those who oppose you as homophobic.

 

Which is exactly what you and others have done and continue to do with Card, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

 

If you think Card's articles are bigoted, one wonders what you think of anti-straight propaganda by more radical gay groups. I rarely, if ever, hear any condemnation of such attitudes from the gay community, which is perhaps understandable, since those radical groups are particularly unforgiving of criticism from other gays. Heterophobia seems to be rather alive and well and thriving (an interesting pejorative term for us is "breeder") and yet it doesn't seem to ruffle any political correctness feathers, as far as I can tell.

[DarkScythe]

I do think that Orson's opinions on homosexuality is not the issues but the inner troll of mine do appreciate the off topicness of the derailment with Orson and homosexuality in this thread. Also I do think Ender's game is worth to go and see on the Imax

[Stargazer]

In my "idiosyncratic" opinion Frank Herbert is much better.

Herbert was good, no doubt about it. But I would not put him ahead of Asimov.

[Garden Girl]

Who here has seen the movie, is it kid friendly?  Sorry to derail the thread, I thought this would contain a discussion of the movie, how well it paralleled the book, if people thought they did a good job with it etc. etc.

 

Hello changed... go to the "Social" forum and read the last few pages of the "What was the last movie you have seen?" thread... there are several of us who have posted our comments about the movie...

By the way, I'm not normally a Sci-Fi fan, but this is one incredibly entertaining, plausible, beautifully done movie... I would say 12 and up for young people...

 

GG

 

In post #142 above, DarkScythe says the movie is worth it to see in Imax... I saw it in my regular theatre and the special effects are beautifully done... exciting...

Edited November 7, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Stargazer]

As I understand it, the use of the term "especially" in the definition means the rest of that sentence is superfluous to the central part of the definition. People who promote bigoted ideals can and often are nice to people on a personal level. "Niceness" doesn't disqualify someone from promoting bigoted views, insofar as they are still intolerant of others.

Fwiw, if it helps me explain better, I don't believe Mr. Card is "hateful," but I believe his views definitely are bigoted. Bigoted and hateful are not interchangeable, though all-too-often, they are inaccurately and unfortunately used as such.

I am so freaking tired of this. I try to avoid these threads, but I guess I am a glutton for punishment.

You define bigot as opposing the effort to redefine marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. I oppose redefining marriage, therefore I am a bigot. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest you.

This is the same crapola with regard to politically opposing President Obama. Since President Obama is black, therefore opposition to his policies confers "racism" upon the person who opposes him politically.

If you oppose taxing everyone with a job and using a small percentage of the tax to feed people who refuse to work, then you want to starve the poor.

If you don't want the Federal government to take over the health care industry, then you are trying to keep the poor from going to a doctor, and you want them all to die.

If you oppose teachers' unions efforts to fight merit pay for good teachers, then you are against education and want all our children to be illiterate.

If you don't want the government to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens then you want to increase violence in our communities.

How many others can you come up with? There is a rich vein of it, free for the taking.

OSC is not a bigot, and neither am I. I am not a racist because I oppose Obama politically. I do not want the poor to starve. I don't want the youth of America to become ignorant buffoons. I don't want everyone in my community to die in shootouts.

Stop the insanity.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Stargazer

[Calm]

I am so freaking tired of this. I try to avoid these threads, but I guess I am a glutton for punishment.

You define bigot as opposing the effort to redefine marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. I oppose redefining marriage, therefore I am a bigot. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest you.

This is the same crapola with regard to politically opposing President Obama. Since President Obama is black, therefore opposition to his policies confers "racism" upon the person who opposes him politically.

If you oppose taxing everyone with a job and using a small percentage of the tax to feed people who refuse to work, then you want to starve the poor.

If you don't want the Federal government to take over the health care industry, then you are trying to keep the poor from going to a doctor, and you want them all to die.

If you oppose teachers' unions efforts to fight merit pay for good teachers, then you are against education and want all our children to be illiterate.

If you don't want the government to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens then you want to increase violence in our communities.

How many others can you come up with? There is a rich vein of it, free for the taking.

OSC is not a bigot, and neither am I. I am not a racist because I oppose Obama politically. I do not want the poor to starve. I don't want the youth of America to become ignorant buffoons. I don't want everyone in my community to die in shootouts.

Stop the insanity.

I agree with everything you say above and in this case this is why I gave you a point and probably will give you a few more elsewhere because I think it needs to be said, I just want to mention that these extreme positions occur on the other end imo (can't say whether they happen more or less because I am not equally exposed). I am tired of turning anyone into a cartoon just because they disagree on something that one feels is fundamentally important.  I just wish that politics and the discussion around them would deal with reality and not these imagined enemies.

Edited November 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I agree with everything you say above and in this case this is why I gave you a point and probably will give you a few more elsewhere because I think it needs to be said, I just want to mention that these extreme positions occur on the other end imo (can't say whether they happen more or less because I am not equally exposed). I am tired of turning anyone into a cartoon just because they disagree on something that one feels is fundamentally important.  I just wish that politics and the discussion around them would deal with reality and not these imagined enemies.

Well, the whole marshalling of forces on both sides and the time and treasure and energy that got consumed in the whole SSM fight was pretty amazing given the relatively small economic and social impact at stake. It seemed at times that both sides were determined to make sure that we were completely distracted from issues which actually had significance to most people. There were times when I just wanted to stand up and shout can we all please quit obsessing about sex? I really don't care who is having sex with whom. I care about people who are sick and can't afford a doctor, and nursing homes that smell like poorly cleaned urinals, and schools where the teachers wind up having to prevent violence instead of teaching, and police departments which only seem to know how to operate radar guns, and the 75 year old who I interviewed today who was recently scammed out of $15,000.00 via the Internet. I worry about the fact that all of our manufacturing facilities appear to have been exported to a Communist police state. And while all this has been going on we are obsessed with matters sexual as if our teenagers were suddenly equipped with chastity belts and we had some kind neighborhood pregnancy monitors all our problems would be solved. It's like we have all lost our collective minds and even our theologians have lost their last shred of common sense

[BCSpace]

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.

 

I think Card's biggest problem when you look at the history of his statements is that he waffled on his views.  He's obviously trying to have the best of both worlds to say he accepts LDS doctrine and then imply perhaps he doesn't agree with it or doesn't feel that strongly about it or that it no loner matters.  Totally understandable in the industry he's in where one is more likely to be punished for having politically incorrect views.

 

He would certainly still have trouble in any case, but I think it would have been less if he stuck strongly to the LDS viewpoint.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Card's biggest problem when you look at the history of his statements is that he waffled on his views. He's obviously trying to have the best of both worlds to say he accepts LDS doctrine and then imply perhaps he doesn't agree with it or doesn't feel that strongly about it or that it no loner matters. Totally understandable in the industry he's in where one is more likely to be punished for having politically incorrect views.

He would certainly still have trouble in any case, but I think it would have been less if he stuck strongly to the LDS viewpoint.

What are you talking about?

[Stone holm]

What are you talking about?

 

I think he is talking about some of the more recent Card comments where he has mellowed somewhat, left the radical conservative groups, and tended to concede the culture war was over and life as we know it hadn't actually ceased to exist.