Card has been portraying gay characters in his fiction in a positive light for
decades. He has made it clear in his non-fiction writings that several of his
close friends in college at BYU were homosexuals. He has not campaigned to
punish gays for living as gays. His opposition to same sex marriage is simply
defense of the classic definition of marriage that has prevailed through most of
history, even in pre-Christian societies like ancient Greece and Rome where
homosexual behavior was accepted. The fact is that most people who
self-identify as homosexual do not plan on entering a "marriage", and
even those who do are seldom talking about an exclusive union that is
monogamous. The purpose of same sex marriage is not to enable homosexuals to
share their lives and property, which they can do under "civil union"
laws and with legal instruments like wills, deeds, contracts, and powers of
attorney. The purpose of making same sex marriage into a status that is legally
endorsed is to enable gays to use the power of government to punish people who
rwefuse to endorse homosexual behavior.
Its time for everyone to tone down the rhetoric. I've been in
favor of Gay Marriage for years and have been subjected to many unsavory
epithets for my support of the LGBT community. Nonetheless replying in kind is
not justified. We need to police our own causes.I recently witnessed
the LDS Church do a remarkable job of distancing itself from the harsh rhetoric
that some have used against homosexuals. Those who favor Gay Marriage must do
the same. Its time for those on the other side of this debate to tell the
editors of The Atlantic that they are betraying the cause they espouse by
letting their authors use terms like "fascist" to describe those who
disagree with them.Its time to give Orson Scott Card his job back,
and for both sides to drop the scare tactics and demeaning language. Screaming
at each other doesn't solve our difference.
rnoble,No, "God" is saying nothing, declaring nothing -- MEN
are alleging that "god" is speaking and that they are god's only
spokespersons.How convenient for them.How inconvenient
for the rest of us.But they are still fascist, totalitarian
ideologies, just as all the fascist, totalitarian ideologies have been. And the
fascist totalitarian MEN who declare them seem to always claim that it is not
them but "god" who is doing the talking.God is the ultimate
to A Scientist:Actually they are not "facist" ideas but
theocratic declarations. God is declaring that HE will be in charge and HE will
defend HIS against all comers.
Wonder: Compulsion: a feeling of being compelled to some irrational action which
is always unneccessary and often repetitive. Choice: the act of choosing or
selecting, to make a choice. What part of Obamacare falls under Webster's
definition of Choice? Compulsion? Perhaps, further study of a dictionary would
I am neither gay, nor an activist. However, I have read many of OSC's
writings (both fiction and non-fiction); and while I was living in SLC, I also
heard him speak in person.It is debatable whether or not the man is
a fascist, but clearly the original article from The Atlantic did not actually
call him one. However, this quote of his needs to be repeated over and over,
until everyone is admits that OSC is **advocating insurrection against the
federal government**:""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.""Notice that he
doesn't say "vote the bums out of office" or "become a
political activist to support your cause". No, he is actively exhorting
people to DESTROY the government. Is that fascism? Terrorism? Treason? Whatever
it is, it's waaaaaay beyond the limits of rational political discourse.
'Fascist' is a very insulting name, and so is 'homophobic'
insulting, as much so as the worst racial slur I have even heard. When people
use those labels I refuse to listen further. If you want my respect and time to
make your point, you have to grant me the same respect in return.
@banderson -- What nationalization of health care are you talking about.
Remember, the reason you righties all hate "Obamacare" so much is
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE -- from a private company. You're not
buying it from the government, the government isn't giving it to you. YOU
are buying it from a private insurance company. If you think that's
socialism, you are ignorant of what the word means.
So Orson Scott Card expresses a commonly held traditional belief and because it
is not politically correct he is labeled a fascist by some and a bigot by
others. Mr. Card is not a Fascist While his crtics are using the very tools of
fascism in their criticism of him. labeling. demonization and intolerance toward
differing opinions.Merriam Webster Definition of FASCISM1often
capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
I don't see superman mistreating gay people. I don't see
superman involving himself with sexuality. Thatis not what superman is
Roland Kayser: How naive do you think people are to believe that this country
has not been on a march toward socialism for many years? If you don't see
the Nationalization of Health care as a socialism, then I doubt there is
anything I could say to persuade you otherwise. The government dictates almost
everything to its citizens, including what GM must do to sell cars, etc. It
doesn't matter whether its minimum wage laws,'loaning' government
(the people's money) money to companies, or controlling their health care
choices by taking citizen's money to pay for it, to deny that Obama's
actions are socialist is ludicrous. The earth is flat! Do we really have to
wait until the government owns all guns, all business', or
'rights' before we can claim that someone is a socialist? Hasn't
that been tried before without much success in reversing the horror that
Roland Kayser,Thank you. Some sanity in a sea of misinformation.Neil T,Agree completely.Res Novae,Well said. Thank you.
to 1covey: Where is the connection? The part where he says he will work to
destroy any government that supports marriage equality unless they do things the
way he wants them done.
Roland Kayser: I completely agree. Good comment. I am not an Obama
supporter. I do believe labeling Obama a socialist is just a scare tactic by
the far right. We need more civil dialogue in poltics. A true socialist would
consider Obama a failure at implementing socialist policies.
@A Scientist:In the hypothetical scenario where the all-wise,
all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe chooses to establish and rule
His kingdom on the earth, you can take His methods up with Him.In
the meantime, your tiresome efforts to cast members of a religion you despise in
the worst possible light has little to do with the topic.To address
the subject, I think many of OSC's statements on gays are extreme, not to
mention discordant coming from someone who has written beautifully elsewhere
about the need to love others despite their flaws, to be aware of those who are
marginalized, and to overcome prejudices.But fascism is far, far too
serious a thing to throw at someone just because you disagree with his views.
Mr Kayser - "here is the quote..." Frankly,where is the connection? As
this article explains, fascists, communists and anybody else that tries to deny
free expression where there the subject has more than one side. this
aggressively suppressive attitude is disturbing
Scott Card is not a fascist by any definition. I know the guy, and my impression
is that he is over the top in his disapproval of homosexuals; in that respect,
his writings are sometimes annoying. But that doesn't make him Mussolini.
To banderson: Socialism: N. A political and economic theory advocating
collective ownership of the means of production and control of
distribution...Please explain how President Obama's policies
have promoted the collective ownership of the means of production? If he was a
socialist, he would have nationalized the banking system along with GM and
Chrysler at the beginning of his first term. They were in major crisis and there
were people calling for just that. That's not what he did though. He gave
them loans and allowed them to pay the loans back, thereby remaining in private
hands.There is not one thing he has done that has resulted in
collective ownership. Therefore, by your definition, President Obama is no
The original "Superman" was based on ancient Jewish mysticismWhy no hatred toward the Jews then, but open season on the Mormon now?
Nothing could be further from the truth.Orson Scott Card may be LDS,
but he is a bleeding heart liberal in good standing [much like myself].
Socialism: N. A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership
of the means of production and control of distribution... Words have meaning.
The word is aptly applied to Obama without rancor, and without calling him
bigoted, racist, or whatever. However, by action, if not by word, he is a
socialist. If you are a socialist, then be proud of it. Don't hide behind
socialist policies and then act like being called a socialist is
'hate' speech. Advocating your belief that marraige is between a man
and a women is Christian teaching. If gays have a problem with that, then go
after God, but don't call a Christian follower fascist or bigoted for their
Scott Card is not a cartoonist and he's not a fascist. He's a creative
writer. He advocates for his POV. In my mind, the vitriol and inciviility is not
one-directional. I support marriage between a man and a woman, but I am not a
hate monger nor a homophobe. Perhaps we can all tone down the anger and hatred a
Mom of Six,"I never knew that 5,000 + years of thought that marriage
should be between man and woman is fascist and hateful....wow!"Well, it's taken about 5000 years for much of humanity to figure out that
5000 years of thought on racial prejudice was hateful.
A GOVERNMENT attempting to define a religious term such as MARRIAGE is as absurd
as a GOVERNMENT trying to define BAPTISM. The fact is, "marriage" is a
religious term and should never have been introduced into civil law. The only
way to solve this debate is to strike all reference to "marriage" in
civil law and replace it with "partnership of two consenting persons" or
something like that.
So much for the left being tolerant of the beliefs of others.
I would like to re-state the following:I seriously doubt that Mr.
Berlatsky's “gay utopia” ( see the article in the DN ) vision
is supported by most Gay marriage advocates. I would suggest Berlatsky is
applying some of Marcuse's ideas.“...at the University of
California at San Diego, a woman accused Marcuse of demoralizing the youth by
advocating sexual license. Marcuse replied: “Madam, you don't
understand. You misrepresent me. That is not what I teach at all. What I
teach is much worse. I'm teaching the political consequences of the sexual
revolution”“The books of Marcuse are not light reading.
They are written for the serious and informed student. They abound with
technical terminology and esoteric quotations. However, once his code has been
broken, his message is comprehensible.Marcuse claims to be a
critical philosopher whose purpose is to structure the world, not merely to
describe it. For this reason, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the
border between the philosopher's description of what is and what is
desired. In general it may be assumed that favorable description implies
prescription.”The above is from “The Three Faces Of
Revolution”, page 154
Interesting. From the 60's through the 90's every liberated liberal
preached of "free love" and that marriage was an out dated institution.
Now every liberal want's in on it. Go figure.
I've read both articles, and Matthew Sanders is grossly distorting
Berlatsky's editorial. Berlatsky calls Orson Scott Card a bigot, but never
a fascist. He does not label gay marriage opposition as fascism. Berlatsky
hardly even discusses fascism, despite the provocative title of his editorial.
His premise is that superheroes like Superman originate in a desire for
vigilante justice that may have been inspired by the KKK's use of
vigilantism. It's an odd premise, but not one that Berlatsky himself came
up with and he in no way compares Card to the KKK. If Mr. Sanders
wants to write an opinion piece on the misuse of the label "fascist" in
our political discussions, I'm all for it. Go ahead and include Communism
in there, too. But he shouldn't intentionally take an article so far out of
context in order to do so. It is intellectually dishonest and very much
I fail to see the brouhaha over a cartoonist's political views. Unless he
is drawing Doonesbury, who cares what Card does in his spare time? I'm sure if Card's politics come out too far on one end, that
cartoon consumers and others will revolt. Until then, are we saying we support
reverse discrimination and silencing of someone who doesn't who
doesn't support a certain agenda? If we're really practicing what we
preach about non discrimination, we let people do and say what they want so long
as it doesn't hurt us.Ironic how one side often wants to
express their views and lifestyle without infringement, but won't allow
that right to anyone who disagrees with their POV.
It was only AFTER buying a lot of Orson Scott Card's books that I found out
what a strident homophobe he was. And trust me, I did my research into some of
the vitriolic things he has written about Gay people. And now I feel sorry that
I spent so much time and money on his books. It's like finding out that an
artist whose work you admire is secretly a member of the Ku Klux Klan.And this isn't just about Mr. Card expressing his opinion. It's one
thing to say you support "traditional marriage." After all, who
DOESN'T? I have lots of Straight (i.e. heterosexual) friends, some married
and some single, and if any of the singles finds a compatible person of the
opposite sex to marry and make a solemn commitment to, no one will be happier
than me.But it is quite another thing to sit on the board of
directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that works
specifically to deny law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits
and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.He doesn't need MY money.
If I'm labeled a Fascist or Homophobic for believing that marriage should
be between one man and one woman, then fine. I can live with it. That said,
what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Berlatsky's “gay utopia” vision is
supported by most Gay marriage advocates. I would suggest Berlatsky is applying
some of Marcuse's ideas.Herbert Marcuse's book, Eros and
Civilization, preface to the 1966 edition includes this:“It
was the thesis of Eros and Civilization, more fully developed in my
One-Dimensional Man, that man could avoid the fate of Welfare-Through-Warfare
State only by achieving a new starting point where he could reconstruct the
productive apparatus without that 'innerworldly asceticism' which
provided the mental basis for domination and exploration. This image of man was
the determinate negation of Nietzche's superman: man intelligent enough and
healthy enough to dispense with all heros and heroic virtues, man without the
impulse to live dangerously, to meet the challenge; man with the good conscience
to make life and end-in-itself, to live in joy in life without fear.
'Polymorphous sexuality' was the term which I used to indicate that
the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to
activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body
an instrument of pleasure rather than labor”Note
He's not a fascist: he's a bigot. (He's also a talented author.)
The underlying conflict here is the conflation of civil marriage and religious
marriage. Civil marriage, recognized by the State, provides legal entitlements
and protections, but is entirely separate from religious marriage. Churches are
free to marry or not marry people, depending on their particular beliefs and
doctrines. Churches are also free to not recognize some marriages as valid, for
religious reasons. Orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize marriage between a
Jew and a gentile. Catholicism doesn't recognize marriage between Catholic
and non-catholic. No one is requiring churches to recognize or perform
marriages between gays. By the same token, churches shouldn't be demanding
that the State only allow marriages that they will consider valid according to
their doctrines and beliefs. Everyone would be outraged if we Jews demanded that
the government not allow Jews to marry gentiles, as it's not the
government's role to enforce religious proscriptions. Similarly,
there's no good basis for insisting that the government prohibit gays from
marrying just because the religious beliefs of some citizens don't allow
it. Civil marriage laws shouldn't be based on religious laws and doctrines.
Hitler was not the only fascist in Nazi Germany. Millions of ordinary Germans
were complicit in not speaking out against the Nazi's. Calling on the
overthrow of the government for allowing all citizens to marry whom they choose
comes right out of the Nazi play book. Orson Scott Card really needs to get his
head out in the open. Even Glenn Beck has not called for the destruction of the
As long as individual people insist that their vision of marriage is the only
correct vision and advocate that governments regulate marriage to enforce their
vision of marriage, we will have arguments about marriage. I look forward to the
time when governments will focus on civil rights and stop regulating marriage
and social groups are free to have the type of marriage they want. Yes, social
groups may still argue among themselves about the type of marriage, but, at
least, governments won't be involved, and terms like "fascist"
won't be rationally used.
According to the article, here is Noah Berlatsky's vision for the
future:“The gay utopia is an imaginary future in which gender,
sexuality, and identity are fluid and in which pleasure is unregulated by either
external or internal censors. It's a place where taboos dissolve and
sublimation vanishes; every relationship is erotic, every action
sensual.”Sounds rather close to some of the writings of
Herbert Marcuse. In “Eros & Civilization, Boston, Beacon Press, 1966,
p 201. This source and the following quote is taken from the book, “The
Three Faces of Revolution by Dr. Fred Schwarz, The Capitol Hill Press, Wash D.C.
p165“The body in its entirety would become an object of
cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in
the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the
institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized,
particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”In 1966 the
Gay Revolution was almost an unknown. But the Jerry Rubins, Abbie Hoffmans and
the Yippies were very active on the American scene. Berlatsky's vision has
added the Gay folks to the Herbert Marcuse vision.
Mom of Six is right.Was the US a fascist society just 20 years ago
when very few would have welcomed same sex marriage?Was the US in
the WWII era fascist? What about the 1800s?
How dare he take a page from right wing hate radio, and illustrate it like Glen
Seriously, Mr. Sanders..you get all twisted up when christianity is labeled
facist (at least in your opinion)..yet you let that phrase and many more like it
on to this thread almost daily in reference to our President, and progressive
politics? Now that we know who you are, and how you feel, I presume
you won't object if we fill up your email inbox with complaints the next
time a good christian labels liberals or the President with the heinious label
This is an example of the gay agenda's attempt to marginalize any person
even weakly associated with a political agenda differen than their own. It
harkens back to the physical threats made by such undisciplined zealots of
gaydom who faked terror attacks (remember the white powder mailed in
envelopes?), and went after the donors jobs, and against the mormons for their
work on Prop 8 in California. I've read quite a few of
OSC's articles on this topic. What he advocates is more freedom for gays,
not less. He believes that those who don't wish to follow their
inclinations toward homosexuality should be free to choose a different path that
is not advocated by the gay-politicos. His viewpoint is important,
and well-reasoned despite the diatribes leveled at him personally. Finally, I believe it's foolish to attack comic authors because they hold
viewpoints different than you do. All the classics have long had authors who
hold views that no longer hold water. HP Lovecraft was racist. Heinlein a
misogynist. Huxley, a reclusive luddite. Wilde was gay. Still their works are
intriguing and valuable and we should examine their works.
No one appreciates or needs name calling. However, there is a fine line between
believing something and taking action against others. In this case, Mr. Sanders
may hold his beliefs about denying civil marriage to others. That is his
belief, probably from a religious perspective, but religious marriage has
nothing to do with civil marriage. That is quite evident as two straight
atheists can be legally married by a Justice of the Peace and every State and
Country recognizes their civil marriage. It is also the right of those opposed
to Mr. Sanders views to exercise their rights and not purchase his products.
The majority of Americans approve of civil same-sex marriage, especially young
people. Therefore, it will become the law of the land soon enough. It is
merely extending civil rights to all. Churches may continue to support, or not,
but this is not their call. This is civil marriage, not religious. If Mr.
Sanders chooses to actively promote his anti-SSM agenda and deny others civil
rights, then it certainly is the right of others to boycott his work.
If only we became just as distraught at wrongful uses of the word
"socialism" as we do with wrongful uses of the word "fascism."
If you call President Obama a socialist, you really shouldn't
get offended when someone calls you a fascist.That being said, Orson
Scott Card is no more a fascist than President Obama is a socialist, and
labeling them, falsely, as extremists, doesn't help anything.
Just another in a long, LONG series of liberal rants, in which the
"loving," "caring," "sensitive" liberal shows his true
self, demonizing a perceived enemy and accusing him of some of the more vile of
common liberal traits.
Orson Scott Card thinks laws against sodomy should still be on the books. That
level of government intrusion... if the shoe fits...
Here is the quote from Card that led the author to label him a fascist:"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."People can decide for themselves.
At least the majority of people have some common sense, I read the article and
about 50 of the almost 400 comments. It was enough to realize that more than 90%
of the comments thought the article was ridiculous and/or hateful and that
includes many comments by those of the LGBT community.
OK, I read both articles and I think both Sanders and Berlatsky are up Rhetoric
Creek without a paddle. But Sanders is much farther up that creek.
Berlatsky's article makes some odd comparisons and enters a bizarre
intellectual wilderness of superhero tropes and KKK-rooted vigilantism that
doesn't quite gel for me. But Sanders looks like he is trying
desperately to be offended at anything so he can spin off into a personal rant
that has little to do with Berlatsky's article. Despite the provocative
title, Berlatsky's article hardly addresses fascism, never accuses Card of
it (he calls Card a bigot, not a fascist), and never brings up Hitler,
Mussolini, Pol Pot, et al. He never equates Card with the KKK. Sanders
disingenuously leads readers into believing that Berlatsky does.Poor, poor form, Mr. Sanders, you should be ashamed of this editorial.
I never knew that 5,000 + years of thought that marriage should be between man
and woman is fascist and hateful....wow! With this being said, after reading
the article I was shocked at just how truly "out to lunch" our society
has become. Are we truly going to swing so far the other way that any lifestyle
will be ok as long as both parties agree??? sheesh!
It is not unreasonable for the homosexual population to expect kind and
understanding treatment from christians. However, it is not because christians
are taught to tolerate people with 'moral flaws', which they seem to
be able to ignore at will anyway, but because homosexuality isn't
necessarily morally flawed at all just because christians say it is. Indeed,
almost anything one can attribute to being true because it has some basis in any
religion should be dismissed as potentially false until proven otherwise,
because that's what it is. 'God says so',by the way, is not
proof. There's a good chance all religion is partially or totally
fabricated, and it in no way deserves to impose itself on the larger society
without solid proof.
The LDS approved Bible Dictionary states:"The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but is at the
present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the millennial era, the
kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical, and will have
worldwide jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made 'a full
end of all nations' (D&C 87: 6)."Doctrine and Covenants
87:6 says this "end to all nations" will be accomplished through war and
bloodshed:"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed...shall the
inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and
chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a
full end of all nations;"Doctrine and Covenants 1:14 adds:"...the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the
Lord, neither the voice of his servants (the Mormon leaders), neither give heed
to the words of the prophets and apostles (the Mormon leaders), shall be cut off
from among the people;"Someone please explain. By anyone's
definitions, these seem to be totalitarian and "fascist" ideas,