Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Oh no, he had an opinion that old people have! Quick, martyr him so that people will know not to have opinions of their own. *sigh*
The problem is that the government foolishly calls the license they give out a "marriage" license. Marriage in many cultures is a religious institution rather than a simple legal union that the license is. This makes ignorant people think that laws impacting this license are synonymous with laws impacting their actual religious institution. That redefAs such, you generally can't see people trying to protect their religious institution (even erroneously) as being intolerant so much as defensive.
If you really want to solve this ridiculous issue. Just rename the marriage license to something like a Civil Union for everyone to get, hetero or homo or whatever. Civil Union would have been perfect since this is a financial and legal union but the term itself carries baggage with it. But some similar term would sufficiently separate the government institution of a legal union from a religious institution people are currently confusing it with.
Frankly, with the separation of church and state being such an important practice I'm surprised that anyone has allowed the government to hold onto this relic of the Catholic Church being in power. In America, marriage licenses were used to keep people of difference races and religions from marrying. This really isn't something the government should have control over. Religiously, I wouldn't think practitioners of any faith should want the government to control it to any degree either.
In this way, the controversy is broken as the association is broken. Christians, for example, can start to realize that in their religion it's their God that puts people together in marriage and not the US government or some such nonsense. The gay community may then have all the rights and responsibilities they've wanted all along with significantly less resistance. Marriage would be the ceremony individuals have on their own time in their own faith just like it is now. A rose by any other name, if you will.
But we've got to understand that these people see themselves as defending a belief system moreso than putting someone down. That's an important distinction albeit with the same result regardless. Just looking at it from someone else's shoes can make a big difference rather than assuming it's all one thing or nothing.
The problem is that the government foolishly calls the license they give out a "marriage" license. Marriage in many cultures is a religious institution rather than a simple legal union that the license is. This makes ignorant people think that laws impacting this license are synonymous with laws impacting their actual religious institution. That redefAs such, you generally can't see people trying to protect their religious institution (even erroneously) as being intolerant so much as defensive.
If you really want to solve this ridiculous issue. Just rename the marriage license to something like a Civil Union for everyone to get, hetero or homo or whatever. Civil Union would have been perfect since this is a financial and legal union but the term itself carries baggage with it. But some similar term would sufficiently separate the government institution of a legal union from a religious institution people are currently confusing it with.
Frankly, with the separation of church and state being such an important practice I'm surprised that anyone has allowed the government to hold onto this relic of the Catholic Church being in power. In America, marriage licenses were used to keep people of difference races and religions from marrying. This really isn't something the government should have control over. Religiously, I wouldn't think practitioners of any faith should want the government to control it to any degree either.
In this way, the controversy is broken as the association is broken. Christians, for example, can start to realize that in their religion it's their God that puts people together in marriage and not the US government or some such nonsense. The gay community may then have all the rights and responsibilities they've wanted all along with significantly less resistance. Marriage would be the ceremony individuals have on their own time in their own faith just like it is now. A rose by any other name, if you will.
But we've got to understand that these people see themselves as defending a belief system moreso than putting someone down. That's an important distinction albeit with the same result regardless. Just looking at it from someone else's shoes can make a big difference rather than assuming it's all one thing or nothing.
You're really thinking about actors. They're the only ones whose resumes are tied to how well a film does financially.HyenaThePirate said:
Production teams/companies are more "normal jobs" and hirings based on things like showing up to work on time, getting along with crew members, listenin; basically your everyday office conduct, so that any issues with production should be as a result of the star power screwing up, not the company.
Sure, maybe the head of production might have a tougher time if he lets things fall apart, but the financial success/failure of a film doesn't really impact how the gaffer's resume looks.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.bravetoaster said:
Back the fuck up buddy.
The Baron being the only homosexual in the books isn't a commentary on homosexuals. How many other gay characters are there in popular literature?
Next, the Baron is vile because he's a cruel, vicious, sadistic, manipulative, twisted, evil, pedophile. He'd be just as evil if it were young girls he was raping. Even if you want to argue that FH meant his homosexuality to be "the final touch", that's still a subjective opinion, and not fact.
As far as the Duncan Idaho bit. Yes, when the ghola was reawakened, and he saw that a lot of Fish Speakers were lesbians, he was outraged. His outrage is seen as immature, and the locals tell him to chill the fuck out, and to quit being so dumb. Even if Duncan was homophobic, that's one character, and not how the whole series is
If you're going to say that Dune is "creepily loaded" with anti-gay stuff, you need better examples
I said "Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series"--my implication that I was referring to the entire Dune series may have been lost, but that was the original intent and, I think, still implicit in the actual quote.Yosharian said:
Unless you have something from Herbert, himself, saying so, then you don't know that.
Correct. It is, nonetheless, valid literary criticism unless Herbert himself has explicitly stated otherwise (and, even then, it's still a valid point of discussion, even if the author did not intend for it to say anything in and of itself).
"Load" was the completely wrong word on my part. I'm trying to think of the correct one and drawing a total blank, for whatever reason. In either case, my original point was that, buried amid the couple thousand pages of text, are little bits that are strikingly anti-gay (or at least anachronistic, reading it in this era).
But, really, read God Emperor again and tell me the bit with (I gather, from the internet, it's the 3rd?) Duncan getting upset over homosexuality isn't momentarily jarring.
I wasn't slinging mud (and, if I had been, rest assured it wouldn't've been done as an amateur). There's no real mud to sling at Dune (the first novel or the series)--some criticisms, sure, but if you can't find any faults in that much text, you're not paying attention. It's a damned fine series and the first book remains the standard by which I judge similar writing and storytelling.
(Okay, I realize this is already pretty well off-topic, but can I just fanboy out for a second? You know what's my absolute favorite trope from that series? The way someone will come up with a genuinely brilliant plan of impressive depth and complexity, then, when they go to execute it, it turns out the entire situation has changed, the shit has already hit the fan, and they've got to come up with an entirely new plan while trying not to die right then and there. Best.
I'm very much backing up. See above--I used the absolutely wrong word for what I had meant. That was sloppy and stupid on my part, thanks for calling me out on it.Lionsfan said:
^ This right here. I would also like to elaborate as to why. Marriage has always been a religious institution. In the US of A religion and politics is supposed to be separated. By making laws about Marriage, the government is effectively restricting people's religious beliefs (which it is not supposed to, but has been doing for some time). On the other hand, part of what goes along with marriage is the legal aspect. For the time being lets call that legal aspect legal joining. That part of marriage should be protected under law and allowed to all people, regardless of beliefs or sexuality. This part is what dictates your taxes and eligibility for certain benefits/restrictions. Since this is an aspect of the government, it should be allowed to all people seeking to participate in it.theApoc said:
In doing this they would also need to separate the words marriage and legal joining to illustrate the differences. At the same time, marriage should be allowed to whomever that particular church gives permission to marry and shouldn't be affected by law period. Meaning that even if a state doesn't allow "gay joining", they should be allowed to be married by a church official of whatever. I know that christian churches tend to not allow gays, but there are plenty of more tolerant religions out there, and they could seek one of them out.
Reality disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_Statesbarbzilla said:
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage as it is being discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that permits them certain legal rights and responsibilities (see above link).
No one in the government gives a damn (or should give a damn, or can do anything about) your little religious crap. You have fun with your verbal agreements with your God or gods or whatever you happen to form religious marriage-y agreements with. If your religion allows you to marry someone or something, go for it. The US government does not care about your religious practices (so long as they're not breaking any laws).
The government and its citizens are concerned with legal rights and people who are, for no reason, being denied equal rights under US law. Your religion does not give you the special right you to deny other people legal rights.
How about no?
When you piss people off with bigotry, you can't seriously expect to dodge the consequences by saying shit like "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
Being tolerant of other's sexual disposition is not the same as tolerating assholes.
When you piss people off with bigotry, you can't seriously expect to dodge the consequences by saying shit like "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
Being tolerant of other's sexual disposition is not the same as tolerating assholes.
Isn't the purpose of a boycott generally to change something? What is the goal of this boycott? What are we hoping to get out of it? Is it to prevent people from publically stating their opinions if they do not allign with ours? Is he actively oppressing a people? Sounds like he just made a political statement that people don't agree with. Oh noes.
Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion albeit incorrectly. There's a significant difference between that and say, calling a group of people by a derrogatory term.
Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion albeit incorrectly. There's a significant difference between that and say, calling a group of people by a derrogatory term.
Its unfortunate that some think along these weird church hive ways. As much as I have enjoyed Cards works, he need to be careful what he says. You shouldn't stand in the way of the happiness of otheres just because an ancient book hints/says so.
If the Morman church doesn't want to promote love and understanding its their loss.
I will still go to see Enders Game, though. It should be cool and I'm all about supporting young actors earning their spurs and good sci fi.
If the Morman church doesn't want to promote love and understanding its their loss.
I will still go to see Enders Game, though. It should be cool and I'm all about supporting young actors earning their spurs and good sci fi.
Dude, maybe you should chill. I am an agnostic, I don't have any religion other than just the belief that there is something else out there besides us. What you are talking about is the continuation of an agreement that England and the catholics had. This carried over to the US, but marriage as we know it today started as a religious institution. Prior to it being about coupling two people in love it was a contractual agreement between men to transfer ownership of women, so I don't consider that marriage. So before you go and spew your bile at someone, perhaps you should collect all the facts first.bravetoaster said:
Marriage itself started somewhere around 2500bc in Mesopotamia. It didn't become involved in politics until the Roman Catholic Church made it mandatory to be "legally" married as a way to increase tithes. Eventually it became even more tied to government when the Church of England tied itself to the King. This is also about the time that the crusades started, so it wasn't a period of great judgement. However gay marriage has been allowed as far back as the Roman empire, and that was with the church's blessing at the time as well.
So next time, maybe you should engage the person in conversation before you make assumptions. After all we all know that when you make assumptions, you make an ass out of yourself (generally speaking, and not you in particular).
This guy gets my point, marriage should not be included in what the government provides as a contract between two people.Lightknight said:
How is that factually wrong? Granted the first recorded "marriages" were in 2500 something BC Mesopotamia, we don't know who the granting party was for the marriage. Excluding that, it was a religious institution long before it was a government institution. Even further back before Christianity got ahold of it, it was an evolution of a pagan right of binding. While I wouldn't call paganism an organized religion by any means, it is a religion none the less.LifeCharacter said:
That, is of course, unless you mean the origin of marriage where it was a contract between men for the sale of women (virtually) as marriage was originally a contract showing that a man owned a woman. I'm sure nobody is intending this as anything akin to modern day marriage (even though this practice carried through for centuries).
P.S. On top of that, at no point am I saying that the GLBT community shouldn't be allowed to marry, I am just saying that the government should have zero say on it. Also I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed the current legal benefits of "marriage" as it is today, I am saying that any two people who desire to be bound in that form of legal contract be allowed to.
Hell I don't know why everyone is so keen on entering a contract that was originally intended as transfer of ownership papers for women.
Ahh, but now it will be extremely against his well being (reputation and future success) to fund that type of stuff anymore, and so you can be almost certain he won't use your money for it.weirdguy said: