It is simply amazing to see the contortions of logic made by people like the
writer for the "Hollywood Reporter" who actively spew hatred and
defamatory statements about someone like Orson Scott Card, someone who's
only offense is to have a belief in maintaining the traditional, centuries-old
structure of marriage as being that of joining people of opposite sexes.Far from simply defending the equal rights of everyone to civil rights
and freedoms that are God-given and constitutionally guaranteed, these advocates
of censorship and distortion actively persecute anyone who dares to speak out
against their distortions of traditional marriage by seeking to deprive people
of their livelihoods and freedom of expression.What incredible
hypocrisy!I, for one, believe in freedom of thought and speech and
hope that Orson will be defended from these attacks and prevail. As vital as it
is, there is much more at stake here than the sanctity of marriage. When the
right to free speech and free thought is infringed, **everything** is at stake.
“Anti-gay activists like Card can’t expect to spread the same
hateful and dangerous rhetoric they once did..."What
'hateful and dangerous rhetoric' has he spread? Seriously--I'd
like to know. The same emotion-laden words are thrown out against anyone that
differs from the LGBT viewpoint.Would someone from the LGBT
community please explain to me, civilly, why it is that if you don't
support the gay agenda, you are considered 'hateful'? Look--I
don't care if someone is LGBT. Good for you. I simply have a different view
on it's role in society. Why does that make me 'hateful'? Perhaps
it would help if you would define the terms 'hate' and
'hateful'. Tell me, by LGBT friends, since you have a
different view than I, do you hate me? Just curious.
Orson Scott Card is a great author. They can't take that away from him.
I'm proud of you Orson. Good for you for Standing for Something.
Someone needs to work a little harder and/or smarter about getting signatures
for OSC's petition. I know there are a lot more than 200 who would have
There is a serious issue with having Card write for such a well known franchise.
Will he represent GLBT characters in his stories, or deny that they exist? If he
does represent them will they be dynamic, interesting characters, or just
shallow and stereotypical?GLBT people do exist in the US and writing
a story without them, or making them minor/sterotypical/shallow characters is
the same as writing out ethnic minorities the same way.Superman is a
fairly old franchise, diversity would help breath some life into it.
"someone who's only offense is to have a belief in maintaining the
traditional, centuries-old structure of marriage as being that of joining people
of opposite sexes."This is a pretty thin argument. Being
centuries-old doesn't make it right. The exact same statement could have
been, and was made about interracial marriage by changing the last two words to
"same race." No one is blasting him for believing same-sex marriage is
wrong. They're blasting him for advocating for laws to support his
theologically based agenda. Believe whatever you want, that's fine. I
don't care if you believe coffee is evil. But if you pass laws to outlaw
the sale of coffee, then you've crossed a line.
Another example liberal bullying. Don't like a divergent view point--bully
I'm on several comic book and animation sites, and can tell you all, things
are changing. Plans are on for a full-court-press of dynamic GLBT superheroes
coming out as the best and strongest, to serve as role-models for the
"persecuted" GLBT children of the world. It's OUR FAULT, people.
Had we taught our children that everyone is different and God loves us all, that
we NEVER bully anyone for his or her or its feelings, this would never have
happened. Or would it? I'm sick of having GLBT rights shoved down my
throat, but know part of the fault is mine because I didn't make sure my
family and Church understood TOLERANCE. Persecution never was tolerance.
Who still reads comics? I wouldn't even know where to buy a comic book if I
wanted to. The only reason DC and Marvel are introducing gay characters in
their comics is to help sagging interest and revenue and frankly I don't
think it has helped. The only way we even know about "super-heroes"
anymore is through movies. Big deal about nothing.
This sounds like discrimination to me. A good man is being deprived of his
economic liberty in retribution for his deeply held religious beliefs. The
haters and bigots have been turned loose upon Christendom.
I thought conservatives believed in the free market. This is a great example of
the free market deciding that they don't want an anti gay person writing
their comic books. The market has spoken, and it rejected Orson Scott Card.
Besides the fact that the market is going against what you believe, what is the
Liberal bullying you say?When some (not all) conservative groups
call for support of Chik-fil-A for their religious corporate social policies,
and boycotting of JCPenney for having Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson, it
is not only OK, it is considered "the Gospel in Action"!But
when supporters of marriage equality (some conservative) petition a comic book
publisher, you decry it as "bullying" and "depriving a good man of
his economic liberty"?I cannot find the words to describe this
The market has not spoken. A small group of people have spoken (yes 15000 is
small). The market won't have spoken until the actual comic comes out and
people decide whether to buy it or not. This is like looking at a PETA petition
against eating meat and saying that the market has spoken against eating meat.
Morality increases one's creativity; playing just one piano key all day
long (as opposed to 88), decreases one's imagination.
samhill:[I, for one, believe in freedom of thought and speech and hope
that Orson will be defended from these attacks and prevail]Don't worry, Card still has his freedom of speech. DC is a private
company, and it was actually the artist who pulled out, as it is his right to do
so.Linus:[A good man is being deprived of his economic liberty
in retribution for his deeply held religious beliefs.]Nope, he
isn't. DC is a private company and the artist is a private citizen, neither
are responsible for providing Card with a livelihood or platform for his ideas.
People are working to hard at trying to find things to be offended over. This
is life y'all; toes will get stepped on, things will be said that we
dislike or do not agree with, are we going to call out our layers every time
somebody makes us cry? if the LGBT is so opposed to OSC writing the comics then
they should encourage their members to not buy them.
The GLBT movement intends to control the media, and they are close to doing that
now. It is interesting that only 3% of the population is gay, yet TV shows are
full of gay storylines, most sympathetic with the GLBT cause. They want to
control the publication and production of educational materials. They are
striving to rewrite history, emphasizing gay culture and history above more
vital themes within the curricula. No one can argue against their
stance, or they will be labeled a "hater." No business can fail to
support their agenda or they will face boycotts and very critical press.
Individuals who espouse a traditional view will have their employment
threatened. Generations to come may look back and recognize that
the GLBT movement as the end of free speech and freedom of consicience in
America. But probably not. History will be revised to portray homosexuals as
the saviors of humankind.
"Would someone from the LGBT community please explain to me, civilly, why it
is that if you don't support the gay agenda, you are considered
'hateful'?"He wants homosexual relations to be
Hey, all you champions of intellectual freedom! An author is being censored for
his personal beliefs! This is right up your alley! Where are you guys?Orson Scott Card is one of my absolute favorite authors. He's a
consummate professional and a fantastic storyteller. He's not going to make
Superman some crusader for traditional marriage, so I don't see what the
big deal is. Fans and the industry only hurt themselves when they censor an
author for his personal beliefs. Let any individual hold their own opinions - as
long as those opinions don't negatively impact the quality of the work they
do, they are entitled to as many fans as the free market grants them. Judge the
art, not the artist. (What is it that leftists tell conservatives all the time?
If you don't like it, don't read it!)If DC Comics
doesn't want Card, that's their problem. Card's success
isn't dependent on how many people embrace his faith and values anyway (did
you hear about the Ender's Game movie that comes out this year? Sounds like
the man has more than a few fans).
This is interesting, because Orson Scott Card is perhaps one of the most visible
Mormon's who is also a Democrat. He is quite liberal on a lot of his
stances, but apparently not on gay marriage. It just goes to show you that you
can associate with one side or the other without completely adopting all of
their stances on issues. I wish more people around here could understand that.
It looks like Card was and will continue to be someone I look up to.
Homosexuality is, always has been, and always will be, a sin of immense moral
magnitude. The fact that there are powerful forces within our society that not
only support it, but seek to silence and intimidate anyone who does not agree
with this lifestyle is frightening.I am glad that Orson is on the
board of NOM, and I support his courage for standing up for what is right.
Why does sexual orientation have to enter at all into comics?? Are other
characters Hindu? Mormon? Japanese? Amputees? War Veterans? Why is our only way
of expressing ACCEPTABLE diversity these days have to be as LGBT? I'm OK if
we open it wide to embrace all kinds of diversity but it seems to run counter to
the whole idea to have diversity constantly expressed as one form. And out of
proportion with the actual population.Kind of reminds of the
Diversity Conference I attended recently where everyone was of a different
ethnic background or sexual orientation, but ALL had been raised and educated
within a 50 mile radius of New York City. Diversity is not just skin deep,
atl134 wrote: "He wants homosexual relations to be illegal."So. I think smoking pot should be illegal, but it is because I think in the
big picture it harms society and people. I don't hate people who smoke
pot. And OSC doesn't hate gays. I believe that he thinks overt homosexual
behavior is bad for society and that gay marriage is bad public policy. So why
the knee-jerk "hater" label? Why can't so many in the GLBT movement
actually engage in civil dialogue? You know, without attacking religion and
recognizing and respecting that their are a variety of reasons to hold to a
potition that differs from the GLBT position.
I think it was tragic that the Romney campaign did not make this issue more
front and center. It would have resulted in many who stayed away from the polls
to have voted for him. But the experts were sure that jobs was the real issue.
And why is this paper silent on today's job info?
I am not a fan of Mr. Card, but this stinks. I thought the entertainment world
got rid of witch hunts at the end of the McCarthy era. I as saddened. This may
just make me a fan of Mr. Card
What a hit job. Anyone who knows Scott Card personally, or has merely read his
books, essays or his websites, would ever accuse him of hating gays. He has
numerous gay friends who can attest that he treats everyone equally and with
love and respect. Card's involvement is best described as a very
thoughtful, impassioned and inspired defense of the institutions of the family
and traditional man-woman marriage. I challenge any one to find a single hateful
or disparaging comment toward LGBT individuals in any of his speeches,
interviews or written works.
@Oatmeal"And OSC doesn't hate gays. I believe that he thinks
overt homosexual behavior is bad for society and that gay marriage is bad public
policy. So why the knee-jerk "hater" label? "He wrote an
article suggesting it was something worth overthrowing the government over. He
clearly has a strong hatred of homosexuals hence why I will call him one.
I am in favor of Gay Marriage and treating the LGBT community with respect and
equality. I have vigorously argued against those (including this paper) who say
"Christian owned businesses" should be exempt from anti-discrimination
laws that include protection for homosexuals because of their faith.That's why I will happily sign a petition saying Orson Scott Card should
be reinstated and that his opinion, while contrary to my own, is protected under
the constitution. The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular
speech. Its ideas such Card's that need protecting. If he was qualified to
work for DC Comics before his views on Gay Marriage came to light, he's
certainly qualified to work their now.Where do I sign?
I am standing and applauding you Mr. Card!!!!!
Card has a right to his beliefs, opinion, and actions concerning those beliefs
and opinions. It IS a free country (still), and the right of freedom of speech
is guaranteed. If I were to not like Card's opinion I could express that
and could/would write him a letter expressing that, but to try to take down his
employment because of that opinion would only be telling of my own hatred.
People, actions speak louder than words.
I read Orson Scott Card's articles in the Nauvoo Times blog and I am
extremely impressed by this man and his goodness.
I have read dozens of Card's books and a great many of his short stories
and essays. I can remember two gay characters in his works, one in Songmaster
and one in Call of Earth. Both were complex, interesting characters who faced
daunting problems. Both possessed heroic, admirable qualities. I recall that he
drew biting criticism from real, actual closed-minded bigots who took exception
when he portrayed gay people as complete, regular people. They blasted him for
never condemning those characters. His writings invariably display
an amazing compassion for humans of all kinds. He creates characters that are
complex and real, with their personal unique blends of weakness and strength.
His stories frequently show the negative consequences of bigotry and the valor
of those who fight against it.Those who accuse Orson Scott Card of
hating gays are tragically ill informed. They are attacking the wrong man.
Bravo, Orson Scott Card. Sad that the comic characters who were once depicted
as decent people are being written as succumbing to gay porn. I am sorry about
that. Keep your standards, man, don't be pressured to back down. The gays
will always have their venue, don't let them take over our heros and make
them into more gay porn.
Freedom of Speech is all about allowing speech you hate. The bigot wheel has
turned so those who feel oppressed are now the oppressors.
@ PepperLayneYou wrote:"Hey, all you champions of intellectual
freedom! An author is being censored for his personal beliefs! This is right up
your alley! Where are you guys?"Censored by whom? The state? an
Organization?This is a grass root movement expressing its opinion.
15,000 spoke and 200 replied. That is not censorship, this is as stated before
by Mukkake "free enterprise", customers expressing their opinion as in
the Chick-filet. Some in favor some against.
So none of you believe in a free market? That his personal slash-and-burn
politics didn't make him a persona-non-grata? That bookstores didn't
have to right to refuse his work?
OK, junkgeek, let's just open the free market flood gates and mandate that
every writer, producer, actor, musician, artist, etc., in the public domain list
all of their personal beliefs, politics, practices & preferences.
Transparency time.Then we can eschew the art of those with whom we
disagree. We'd soon discover who the brave really are.While
we're at it, why can't we have a litmus test for the spousal
faithfulness of politicians and teachers? A barometer of honesty for bosses and
employees? Lie detector tests for all clergy, counselors, doctors, lawyers,
health personell. Video cams in every bar and motel.I know that
would embolden other sexually-discriminated practices that are currently "in
the closet": Those who are attracted to children, animals, aliens, could
push their agenda. Hmmm, I feel a novel coming here.At some point
God is going go spew humanity's filth out. In the meantime, keep
publishing your craft, Mr. Card, and let the market vote.
Good heavens, Filo, is that what we are talking about? Forcing people to fill
out forms stating their personal believes and lie detector tests? Goodness. They
sure did a number on Card, didn't they? And here I thought what
had happened was that an artist had decided he wouldn't illustrate a story,
because of the controversy that had arisin around the writer stating
(voluntarily, and going out if his way to loudly make the point) homosexuality
should be a crime (although he later recanted this) and that the government
should be overthrown, by any means, if they ever dared to make gay marriage
(gasp!) legal. I had no idea people were being forced to fill out forms
detailing all their personal believes and given lie detector tests. The horror!
It's rather amazing, I think, that so many people here, that
say they believe in freedom, think that people should be forced to illustrate
something they don't want to, or that a private company should be forced to
publish material they choose not to. I think there are a whole lotta
people that don't have a clue what freedom is.
I don't think someone's political feelings should determine whether or
not they can have a job (or own a company). I didn't stop going to JC
Penney because they had Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson, and I wouldn't
stop visiting Chik Fil A because of the owner's beliefs.I feel
that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. Last time I checked, being
homosexual was not illegal. But at the same time I don't think this man
should lose his job because of his beliefs. Political and religious beliefs
should have nothing to do with whether or not you get hired for a job (unless
those beliefs would cause you to be an inadequate employee).
Perhaps OSC is concerned with the survival of our civilization. I don't
see this as being hateful, but rather loving all mankind:Marriage
reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late
British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world
civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he
called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
What is going on??? I thought this was America, where people were free to
believe what they wished. Even those opposed to gay marriage 'rights'
support the right of gay people to work, something the gay rights lobby would
deny to Card. Social liberals and the gay rights lobby is so full of
shameless hypocrisy it is stunning. They talk about diversity being necessary
and important (and they're right about that), but when it comes to
diversity in family and parenting, women and mothers are suddenly dispensable
(or, in lesbian couples, men and fathers are irrelevant). Are gay couples not
allowed to be together already, even without 'marriage'? They have
that right and choice. Yet they are twisting society's arm to condone their
relationships, which would purposefully deny children a mother AND a father.
NOTHING is said about the very real needs children have for a mother AND father.
PETA disapproves of meat eaters and leather users ... which
includes most of us. That does not make them bigoted haters, and I see no one
treating so. Why are those who oppose same-sex marriage treated so differently,
being labelled as hateful bigots, just because they oppose something?
For any who think that Card's anti-homosexual feelings are limited to the
"pro-family" views of same-sex marriage, please read his infamous
"The Hyprocrites of Homosexuality". This is the essay that but Card on
the map as far as gays are concerned.
Wow, if you take a stand against gay marriage you are automatically accused of
spreading hateful and dangerous rhetoric. The gay lobby is basically saying you
have NO religious rights and liberties when it comes to marriage. The only
reason I oppose gay marriage is because my religion teaches that it is wrong.
Thus it sounds like they are trying to limit my right to freedom of religious
expression. This world is becoming a hostile place for traditional christians.
I getting about fed up with the 2% kooks running the country. This country was
founded on majority rule. Maybe it's time to remember that. People need to
learn to live with the popular attitude and get over it. I can guarantee if you
if I could impose some of my "minority" beliefs on you, you
wouldn't like it.
@samhill;His "only offense" isn't that he has a belief,
it's that he's using his belief to try and force others who have
different beliefs, to live by his beliefs. That is wrong.@Oatmeal;The simple fact of the matter is that we've finally
started fighting back, and you don't like it.@TheWalker;Prove it. All you have is an opinion.@aceroinox;Working to restrict someone from the legal benefits you, yourself partake of
is not "love and respect". Sorry, it just isn't.@RockOn;Are you talking about Mormons? It sure fits the facts.----I used to read all of Card's books when they came
out and I enjoyed them tremendously. I will never purchase or read another of
his books though, nor attend the movies should they be made. I won't
support his bigotry and discriminatory beliefs. That he has these beliefs
isn't the problem, it's that he's trying to prevent law abiding
Americans from partaking in the legal benefits he, himself enjoys. That is the
very definition of hypocrisy.
There's a troubling hypocrisy in accusing defenders of marriage as being
haters and intolerant, particularly when the target is someone as tolerant and
loving toward individuals of all flavors as is Mr. Card. The tactic of
intentionally misrepresenting the views of those who defend traditional marriage
says more about the attackers that it does those whom they target with their
vitriol.The comparison between sexual attraction and race is old,
tired, and incorrect. The biology of sexual relations does not differ by race,
it differs by sex. Gender roles do not differ by race, they differ by sex.
Procreation is not a function of race, it is a function of sex.The
State cares about the well-being of children and the preservation of society. It
doesn't care about whether two people love each other or are sexually
attracted to each other. The legal burden is on gay folks who wish to enter into
a contractual relationship with each other, because the State has no interest in
I don't oppose gay/lesbian/transgender people. I oppose their
views/beliefs in non-Christian principles, which, sadly, too often go well
beyond one's belief in marriage/relationships, as demonstrated by those
spewing hatred toward Orson Card. I have a good friend who is transgender. We
have many good discussions about every subject under the sun, without letting
our differing points of view get in the way of our friendship.
As a gay male I can tell you that this is *not* a matter of gays, and friends of
gays, seeking to silence. bully or discriminate against anyone who doesn't
approve of us. We respect everyone's right to simply say, "My personal
and/or religious beliefs are such that I don't think homosexuality is
right."Card has gone much farther than that. He's
continually used derogatory language toward gays, painting us with the usual
brushstrokes of immoral, unhealthy and perverse.Our demand of people
like Card is not that they stop voicing their disapproval of us. It's that
they stop using inflammatory language toward us.For examples of what
I mean, check out Card's entry on Wikipedia--and yes, there are references
given for all his quotes.
So this is what the homosexuals (and liberals) mean by tolerance and
diversity....What they mean, clearly shown, is that you MUST agree
with them or you are a bigot. Only people onboard with their idololgy 100% are
deemed tolerant and diverse. Perhaps they should open a dictionary.
I think those who support OSC are wrong, and I think the GLBT folks are wrong,
too. Both groups are wrong, because they both want government to regulate and
make "right" their views. Many of the comments to this article want
tolerance, but tolerance will never happen as long as government regulation of
marriage exists. As long as government says one thing is right and anything else
is wrong, people will use that as their excuse to be intolerant. Let's get
rid of government interference in marriage, and then we can teach people to be
tolerant of others.
Unfortunately, this is par for the course with people on the left. "If you
disagree with my beliefs or my actions, you are a hate monger, and to prove my
point I will spew hate to show that you are a hater." Those on the left
only believe in free speech and free thought if you agree with them. Most
people on the right are more willing to live and let live.
@ Henry Drummond - so it is bad if people opposed to homosexuality pass any law
which has a negative impact on homosexuals, but it is ok for those advocating
for homosexuality to pass laws that force people to accept the behavior. If
the government has no business looking into your bedroom (which it does not), it
also has no business telling you who you should rent to or who you should
employ. You should not have the right to take away my freedoms to do what I
want with my property because you want to do things I do not think are right.
@ChrisB -- you said: "What 'hateful and dangerous rhetoric' has he
spread? Seriously--I'd like to know."There isn't
enough room within a 200 word post to document all the hateful/false/dangerous
rhetoric that OSC has spread about gays.OSC was my favorite author
for years. I love his talent. BUT I have also heard him speak in person, and I
have read many of his opinion pieces. And yes, IMHO "hateful" and
"dangerous" are pretty accurate descriptions of some of his writings.
For heaven's sake, the man has even advocated overthrow of the
government just because of gay marriage! He actually said -- and I'm
quoting here -- that "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", and he means to do that "by whatever
means is made possible or necessary. . . .". Notice he
doesn't say "vote the bums out" or "impeach the crooks" --
this man is explicitly advocating insurrection against the duly elected federal
government. Treason, revolution, call it what you will.Yes, that is
just one small example of his "hateful" and "DANGEROUS"
@Brentbot -- you said: "In fact, no society that has loosened sexual
morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived."Actually --
both ancient Rome and ancient Greece encouraged homosexual relations. Both
societies survived for roughly 1000 years. That's a heckuva lot longer than
*we* have been around.
OSC has had one good idea and has thrived off it for the past (almost) 30 years.
He's a horrible comics writer, and I'm not sure why DC hired him in
the first place. People are entitled to their own views, but people need to
remember that this is the man who threatened to overthrow the government if they
approved gay marriage, something I think anyone can agree is a bit extreme.
Remember when pretty much every boy in America read Superman, Batman, and
Spiderman comics? Ever wonder why they don't anymore?
justamacguy,"majority rule" is a vast, vast
oversimplification. In fact, your logic is just plain wrong. While laws are
enacted by representatives chosen by the majority of their constituents, our
governing document/law, the Constitution, guarantees protection of individual
rights.Many of the early settlers of America (like those on the
Mayflower) were persecuted 2 percenters in their country, who came here looking
for relief. Of course, they then persecuted those who didn't agree with
them. Seems like that pattern is continually repeated.
"But at the same time I don't think this man should lose his job
because of his beliefs. "Rynn, he is not losing his job because
of his believes. First of all, he was freelancing, he did not work for DC. they
choose not to publish his story. I don't know if you know anything about
the publishing industry, but nobody is forced to publish a story. Publishing
houses can, and do, cancel projects, for any reason. But that is
really not even what happened here, from what I can gather, DC was planning on
publishing Card's story, even after the controversy and petitions began
(after all, there is no such thing as bad publicity, right?), but the artist
working on the story decided to bail. And apparently he was under no contractual
obligation to finish his art work. (You don't believe that the artist
should be forced to provide art work do you?) So when the artist bailed, DC
decided to go on with the anthology the story was supposed to be in without it.
Also DC is keeping the option open that they might find another
the lack of tolerance in the gay and lesbian activist groups is astonishing.
whilst calling out what they perceive as hate, they are examples of the very
thing they pretend to abhor.
Division in the name of diversity is splitting our nation to smithereens. This
is no time for fence sitting or shrinking back from gospel principles so as not
to offend others. We've been told to prepare for the last days. It is
obvious we are in the Last Days.
I have only respect for Orson Scott Card and am proud to call him my brother.
Things are what they are in this telestial world. Anything can be used to
discredit someone simply by an accusation. Many people, even here in Utah, think
that we Mormons are a hateful group. I personally don't know anyone who is
a true racist or homophobe. God bless Orson Scott Card.
Gay rights advocates seem quite willing to attack in any way possible people who
do not share their beliefs. They will punish others for exercising their freedom
of belief by trying to rob them of their livelihood. Do they not see the irony
of this? They call it "hate speech" if someone expresses a belief with
which they do not agree. How is it not "hate" when they vilify people
who do not agree with them? Where is the "tolerance" they demand of
others? They demand freedom for themselves but do not mind taking away from
people they despise. They do not truly understand the nature of freedom or of
free speech--not so long as they reserve it only for themselves.
Sexuality is not a race or an ethnicity. Don't use that as part of your
@dons --"Gay rights advocates seem quite willing to attack in
any way possible people who do not share their beliefs."This
seems rather like the pot calling the kettle black. The anti-gay crowd does
plenty of attacking of their own. The difference is that the pro-gay crowd is
fighting for equal treatment under the law, while the anti-gay crowd is fighting
to deny gays their rights (whether it's rights to housing, marriage,
service in the military, jobs, whatever). Understandably, gay people are tired
of being treated as second class citizens."They demand freedom
for themselves but do not mind taking away from people they despise."Freedom goes both ways, here. People being attacked have just as much
right to speak out as those doing the attacking -- and that includes the freedom
to vote with their wallets by boycotting.And remember -- OSC has
done much more than just call homosexuals bad names (which he has) and much more
than say false things about homosexuals (which he also has). Card actually
**advocated the overthrow of the federal government** just because of the gay
marriage issue. That's a bit over the top, don't you think?
Most of you calling gays intolerant and haters if you disagree with us should
step back and evaluate the situation.1) Who is it that has been
voting to suppress glbt equal treatment by the law?2) Who is it that
repeatedly calls glbt individuals "perverts", "immoral",
"twisted", etc.?If you'd just stop treating us like
lepers and let us live our lives as WE see fit without you're passing laws
to prevent us from having the same legal benefits you possess, we'd be much
more than happy to leave you to your bigoted attitudes.Card uses his
influence to deny equality to American Citizens he disagrees with; we have every
right to fight back.Homosexuality AND heterosexuality, JUST LIKE
RACE are inherent traits. The comparison to race is apt and appropriate. The
comparison of the glbt movement for equality is comparable to the black movement
for civil rights not all that long ago. You may be the majority, but we ARE
Americans and we deserve equal treatment by the government and the law.
Gpagentry, what does that mean, you don't know anyone that is a "true
racist"? You know people that pretend they are racist? I don't think
Mormons are hateful as a "group", in fact I think for the most part
their leaders preach to be loving. Of course that is sometimes hard to take
serious when they are so willing to label people as sinners, such as their
totally passive aggressive little saying, "hate the sin, not the
sinner." Anyway, I think there are plenty of Mormons that are very hateful
of that which they don't agree with (not all, obviously). I know this from
living among them and also reading their comments here. I'm
sorry Dons, I believe it is you that do not understand freedom. You have every
right to say what you believe, in fact you are doing it here. But the DNews also
has every right NOT to post your comment. No freedom lost. Others, also, may say
what they think, and sign petitions, and boycott. No freedom lost. And if a
company reacts to a boycott, they have every right too. Again, no freedom lost.
When I was younger, I was bullied by homosexuals who pressured me and even
threatened me to have sex with them (I didn't). Every male I know who was
molested was molested by a homosexual or bisexual man. I have friends who were
pressured by homosexuals to have sex with them (some did; one is dead from AIDS,
another is HIV positive). I am friends with at least one person who lost his
job because he supported Prop 8.At the same time, I am friends with
many homosexuals who enjoy good paying jobs, have no restrictions on their
sexual activities, and who are winning the battle for control of the meaning of
words in our society (words like "gay," "intolerant,"
"hateful").I freely acknowledge that in a free society some
may lose jobs to the shifting center. At the same time, they
don't have to go down quietly. And I am grateful to people like Card who
are willing to stand up for what they believe to be right (and I confess I feel
better when I agree with them, as I do now).
@qapilot"Even those opposed to gay marriage 'rights' support
the right of gay people to work, something the gay rights lobby would deny to
Card. "If you're right about that then why has this state
tabled the bills to ban firing someone over sexual orientation each of the
last... however many years Equality Utah has been at it? Last year the
Republicans in the state legislature threatened to go after SLC's
non-discrimination if the Democrats and Equality Utah didn't pull back on
their push to make it statewide.@RBB"it is ok for those
advocating for homosexuality to pass laws that force people to accept the
behavior."Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same
sex, nor forcing your church to marry same-sex couples. " it
also has no business telling you who you should rent to or who you should
employ. "Qapilot... RBB is one of those people who don't
seem to be on the same page as you, thinking it's totally fine to fire
people for being gay.
@DGDENTON"Division in the name of diversity is splitting our nation to
smithereens. This is no time for fence sitting"So you think
division is splitting this nation apart... and you want more division?
A few gay rights supports here seem bent on the idea that there is no harm or
foul here. DC Comics is a private organization and Mr. Card is a private
citizen, so what's the big deal? I dare each and everyone of you saying
this to tell me in all honesty that if this was reversed, you would not be
crying "discrimination!"If Mr. Card supported gay ideals and
petitions went out from traditional marriage groups to have him removed and DC
Comics did, tell me there would not be an uproar over that?Face it,
it's only discrimination if it's against someone who thinks like you.
@Jeff -- "When I was younger, I was bullied by homosexuals who pressured me
and even threatened me to have sex with them (I didn't). Every male I know
who was molested was molested by a homosexual or bisexual man. "And women are bullied and pressured and threatened **and raped** by straight
men every day, in astonishing numbers. Men are not saints, regardless of whether
they are straight or gay.
Very glad to hear that people are starting to boycott in earnest discriminatory
viewpoints that don't have objective reasoning behind the discrimination.
I think it is only a matter of time before schools start to boycott
BYU in sports for the same reasons like they did with the issue of blacks in the
70s. That caused real change to occur. I love BYU sports, but I want equality
more. I hope it happens.
This is equivalent of Rush Limbaugh being an annalist for NFL broadcasts. They
let him do it once and he made a complete fool of himself by bringing outmoded,
outdated racial stereotypes into the conversation. If Card tries to advance his
archaic agenda he will meet the same fate.
"If Mr. Card supported gay ideals and petitions went out from traditional
marriage groups to have him removed and DC Comics did, tell me there would not
be an uproar over that?"Uh, milo, the exact same principle would
apply. For instance, if the D-News decided to fire someone because they, say,
were against the LDS church, the D-News would have every right to do that. Of
course when you get into journalism (not that I think the D-News is very
interested in that anymore, sorry guys) or opinion, to have integrity you should
allow a bit more uh, variety in your voice. Lets say an orginazation
that is trying to make an argument for traditional marriage had someone writing
freelance articles for them arguing for gay marriage, would I expect that
orginazation to publish those articles or work with that writer? No, of course
not. The argument stays the same no matter which way you look at it:
a private orginazation has a right to determine for itself what it will publish.
That is freedom. How come you guys are having such a hard time understanding
Mark, I'm not arguing the point of DC Comics, I'm arguing the point of
those 17,000 petition signers. I'm arguing the point of the thousands who
sent death threats and demanded that various persons who supported Prop 8 in
California be fired from their jobs. I'm arguing the point of all the
wedding dress makers and photographers and cake decorators who were taken to
court and lost everything because they refused their services to a gay couple
despite the refusal coming because of religious beliefs.DC Comics
has only put this on hold, possibly killed it, because the artist bailed. The
issue here are all the "tolerant" people who because they don't
agree with Mr. Card, and feel the need to persecute him and run him out of
Dodge. A person should be able to enjoy their job without persecution for their
beliefs. THAT is freedom. How come you are having such a hard time
understanding that?Again, it's only discrimination if it's
against your guy. That seems to be the message from the LGBTQ community.
OHBU said,"No one is blasting him for believing same-sex marriage is
wrong. They're blasting him for advocating for laws to support his
theologically based agenda."Since when did it become illegal,
immoral or unpatriotic to advocate for laws that support one's personal
point of view?RanchHand said, "If you'd just stop
treating us like lepers and let us live our lives as WE see fit without
you're (sic) passing laws to prevent us from having the same legal benefits
you possess, we'd be much more than happy to leave you to your bigoted
attitudes."No, you wouldn't. You would then move on to the
next point on your agenda that you want to force down the majority's
@J-TX;It must be scary being you, living in your frightening little
@ amazondoc: It was making several points. One was that homosexuals are just
as likely to be bullies as non-homosexuals, and therefore do not necessarily
need or deserve special protections. The current propaganda against bullying in
our society is more often than not intended to use pathos as an argument in
favor of same-gender marriage.Another point is that when people are
bullied by homosexuals it is hypocritical to turn the other way and pretend that
only homosexuals are bullied and therefore only homosexuals need special
protections. Schools, especially in California, allow terrible things to be
said to and about people that oppose same-gender marriage, but will expel anyone
that even uses a perceived slur (like "that's so gay"). It appears
to be a current strategy for homosexuals to bully people out of their jobs if
those people support traditional opposite-gender marriage. I don't believe
they should be given a pass on that.A new point that I would like to
make is that in no way is the lobbying for same-gender marriage comparable to
the fight for equal rights for women and non-whites, except that homosexuals
have co-opted tactics.
I have read every piece of fiction that Orson Scott Card has published since his
first, award winning story, Ender's Game, appeared in Analog Science
Fiction back in 1976. In 35 years of fiction writing, he has included homosexual
characters and portrayed them in a positive light,including the protagonist of
his novel Songbird, a major character in his serirs The Memory of Earth, and
characters in his Enders Game series of novels. There is no reason to believe
that his story set in the Superman universe would be any different. Card does
not use his fiction to advance his pinions about same sex marriage. He expresses
himself on that isse through blogs and other opinion writing, like anyone else.
And he has not asked readers of his fiction to support his views on the meaning
of marriage. This whole controversy demobstrates that "gay
marriage" is very little about freedom of association, since no one is
stopping gays from sharing their lives with each other. Rather,it is about
creating legal means to censor anyone who does not publicly endorse homosrxual
behavior as good and praiseworthy.
OSC has written gay characters in a positive light. Ironically he has taken a
lot of criticism from LDS readers because he portrays an assortment of
characters outside LDS mainstream in positive ways. This isn't
about judging the art, but the artist.It is a knee-jerk reaction
attacking a man at his work based on his affiliations outside his work. This
reminds me of the McCarthy era where people in entertainment were branded
communists, social deviants and... "homosexuals" (which in its day would
blacklist them), only now it's the opposite side of the coin attacking
those with contrary viewpoints and attempting to have them blacklisted for it.
Kinda crazy that our tolerance has brought about such intolerance.
It's almost as if the homosexual activists have no desire for equality,
only domination and special rights. I guess those bad things that
happened in the past were only bad because they happened to the wrong crowd.
Nobody is attacking Mr. Card for his personal; beliefs. People are reacting
aginst his polticial movilization against LGBT people."In 2008,
Card wrote that "[t]here is no branch of government with the authority to
redefine marriage," and indicated that a revolution would be appropriate if
gay marriage became law. He said: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. . . .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." WikipediaHehas the right to express and fight for his beliefs. Those who oppose him
have te right to do the same. That is called freedom.