Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[SuperfastJellyfish]

Of course the spineless worm backs out of it when there's a sign of losing money.

Man, you're just spitting hatred. Don't be like that. It's so sad when people fighting with intolerance and injustice become angry and hateful themselves. Whether or not you like or dislike Card (in this instance) try to express you mind from the position of peace and tolerance, not anger and aggression. This will do much more good to our cause.

All in all, I'm really glad to see so much comments separating Card's public persona from his books, and other calmly expressing their views. Whether you think that he deserves tolerance or not, show it, because when tolerance is denied due to someone "not deserving" it really scarry bigotry, the silent, most powerful one is born.

I'm seeing a lot of 'but he doesn't incorporate his hatred into his books' arguments from Card's defenders, which is actually incorrect. Regardless if your personal opinions, Ender's Game was the only book of his to be unambiguously well-received, and even then he incorporated portions of his own beliefs into them. I can't sight you sources but the link does exist that the 'Buggers', the primary antagonist race in the book, were named such because the term apparently referenced sodomy/sodomites. After Ender's Game his writing style devolved to the point where he was either bland or offensive.

First of all, Speaker for the Dead is at least as good as Ender's Game. Secondly... what???? Are you serious? Buggers is an euphemism for sodomy??? For real??? Like, insect race called Buggers is actually secret gay people? WHAT??? You must be kidding or something.

Now I remember why I stopped posting here. I really don't get this whole neutered sense of niceness everyone has to have, it's why I avoid imgur where everyone must be saintly and kind in all situations, when they themselves are acting like right gits. Spitting hatred? If that's what I'm doing then what the hell was he up to?

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

well, if the black people had stayed nice, then maybe race segregation or worse would be still up now.

i am not one person to use derogatory terms like worm or such-but calling someone bigot isn't one-bigotry is wanting rights and benefits for oneself or oneself´s group but actively or inactively trying to refuse or steal that right or benefits from others.
its talking water but drinking wine-where the wine is social and financial benefits and rights that every couple/family should have-or none.
but well, that analogy isn't 100% right-he drinks the wine but doesn't other people to do too-because he fears he wont have enough for himself. which is greedy. (and well, it isnt 100% analogy either-because nobody will drink his wine. Other people just want to drink theirs.)

and-well i dont want some person money which wil use that moneys to pay people that try to take some human right away (especially if they say that their constitution says everybody is equal in rights..(and will often point a finger at "other"/"foreing" persons for not being so good and civilized and blablabla as them self. e.g fundamental religiotic* people which act like they are the only ones with moral and goodness but use religious ideas to refute other peoples right)




*i am religious myself. but i dont think that my religion or morals should count for other people if they don't believe in that stuff. And that the ideas and laws of one state and society should not base on the convictions and beliefs of a certain group-especially not of a part of that group has convictions which will lead to inequality, pain and problems for other people

 

[Spartan448]

Personally, if there's one thing I hate more than bigots, it's when the people who were bigoted against suddenly think that because they were bigoted against, it automatically gives them the right to completely destroy the bigots.

As an Secular Humanist (I will not call myself Atheist, and by extention throw myself in the same boat as Antitheists, who I despise just as much as Theists) with many LGBT friends, I will agree that Card's statements infuriated me, and many of my friends. But we all still plan on seeing the movie. Why? For three reasons:

1) Forgive and forget. The battle is won. No matter what people say, the battle is pretty much won. Just like fighting continued after the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse during the American Civil War, there will still be legal battles after this Supreme Court decision. But it is almost certain that the battle is won. With the Supreme Court decision in place, groups like the ACLU can bring successful lawsuits against pretty much any anti-gay marriage law they choose. There will still be vocal opposition, but there has always been vocal opposition to change. If your goal is to win legally, AND obtain complete acceptance among people, then you will never win, as there will always be someone out there who hates you. Continuing to attempt to destroy your opponent after the end of battle is akin to winning a battle because the other army surrenders, and then having your men cut down the entire other army while they're unarmed and expecting mercy. We don't want to be those kinds of monsters. Way we see it, everyone is entitled to their opinions, whether offense or politically correct. But we can't go on hating those people forever. There are some special circumstances, like ordering the extermination of an entire ethnic group. But that didn't happen here.

2) Ender's Game dealt with something COMPLETELY different. Ender's Game dealt with the morality of using child soldiers, even if it came down to defending the human race. Ender takes a very clear physical and mental toll by the end, and the novel is all about how even when use for good purposes, using child soldiers is still a great moral crime, as you may create a soldier, but you murder a child in the process.

3) Given that the movie is being directed by the author of the book, it will probably be one of the better book-made-into-movie films of the decade. Not better than The Hobbit, of course, but still better than Twilight.

Yes, Card was an asshole. That much won't change. But by discriminating against the discriminator, we change nothing. If anything, we become just as bad as they do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how politically incorrect it is, and the minute we start trying to destroy people for that is the minute we are no longer a free and open society.

And to me, that is more important than any other legal declaration.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

If I misread you, then I apologize. Perhaps it is because of all the vitriol that is being thrown about in this thread that I mistook your stance, either way if I am wrong, I am sorry. My points are still valid though.

1: Kramer may be a fictional character, but it was the actor who is a racist (I just can't remember his name for the life of me).

2: My point had little to do with the deceased authors, and much more to do with the fact that people only see the villains the media tells us to. Point in case being the fact that despite what the living people I mentioned did, your response is why should I care. On top of that, I stated that I can almost guarantee (since I don't know you, I can't actually guarantee anything) that at least one of the people involved in the things you enjoy are responsible for something horrible. Yet it is OSC that people are choosing to throw fire on. (not saying it is you, since you have made it clear you aren't involving yourself in the boycott)

3: Attacking someone's character isn't a great way to make yourself seem intelligent, nor will it garner sympathy to your cause. I'm sure you were only doing so as you thought I was attacking your character, but that isn't the case. I never said that you in particular were trying to boycott him. My final statement was intended as a generalization stating that I don't care if someone (not you in particular, but you as an idiom) wants to start a boycott, but that I don't want other's views imposed upon myself or another. If you have an issue with that particular statement, then perhaps you are not as neutral as you think on the subject.

4: As for my being sore about people not listening to me, you completely missed my point on that. I wasn't saying that people didn't find me compelling, I was saying people enjoy eating meat and don't want to hear what goes on at said ranches. I won't go into it here, but it is rather disgusting behavior. You can feel free to verify the veracity of that fact on your own.

P.S. People seem to be taking my comments as though I was speaking in anger. I assure this isn't the case and may be a personal failing in how my writing comes off online. It isn't intentional, and I apologize to anyone who thinks I am being hateful towards them.

 

[barbzilla]

Personally, if there's one thing I hate more than bigots, it's when the people who were bigoted against suddenly think that because they were bigoted against, it automatically gives them the right to completely destroy the bigots.

As an Secular Humanist (I will not call myself Atheist, and by extention throw myself in the same boat as Antitheists, who I despise just as much as Theists) with many LGBT friends, I will agree that Card's statements infuriated me, and many of my friends. But we all still plan on seeing the movie. Why? For three reasons:

1) Forgive and forget. The battle is won. No matter what people say, the battle is pretty much won. Just like fighting continued after the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse during the American Civil War, there will still be legal battles after this Supreme Court decision. But it is almost certain that the battle is won. With the Supreme Court decision in place, groups like the ACLU can bring successful lawsuits against pretty much any anti-gay marriage law they choose. There will still be vocal opposition, but there has always been vocal opposition to change. If your goal is to win legally, AND obtain complete acceptance among people, then you will never win, as there will always be someone out there who hates you. Continuing to attempt to destroy your opponent after the end of battle is akin to winning a battle because the other army surrenders, and then having your men cut down the entire other army while they're unarmed and expecting mercy. We don't want to be those kinds of monsters. Way we see it, everyone is entitled to their opinions, whether offense or politically correct. But we can't go on hating those people forever. There are some special circumstances, like ordering the extermination of an entire ethnic group. But that didn't happen here.

2) Ender's Game dealt with something COMPLETELY different. Ender's Game dealt with the morality of using child soldiers, even if it came down to defending the human race. Ender takes a very clear physical and mental toll by the end, and the novel is all about how even when use for good purposes, using child soldiers is still a great moral crime, as you may create a soldier, but you murder a child in the process.

3) Given that the movie is being directed by the author of the book, it will probably be one of the better book-made-into-movie films of the decade. Not better than The Hobbit, of course, but still better than Twilight.

Yes, Card was an asshole. That much won't change. But by discriminating against the discriminator, we change nothing. If anything, we become just as bad as they do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how politically incorrect it is, and the minute we start trying to destroy people for that is the minute we are no longer a free and open society.

And to me, that is more important than any other legal declaration.

Thank you for basically expressing my opinion when I've otherwise been unable to.

People continue to fire long after the battle is won way too often (both literally and figuratively). If more people could move past the hatred (on both sides of the fence) the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately too many people want their cake and eat it too (I hate that analogy), in the sense that even though they've won a major battle they consider the war still raging without giving it time to let the dust settle.

Is OSC wrong for stating his views? To me, yes he is, but they are his views and he is allowed to state them. Should he be considered a bigot? Yes, he should as he holds views counter to what this nation is supposedly founded on. Should we boycott his film? That is up to every individual to decide for their own personal reasons. If you think you shouldn't give him any more of your money, fine by me. I also think you should be allowed to share your opinions with everyone as well, but don't tell other people they are wrong for not wanting to boycott him. Nor should you say they support anti-gay movements in doing so. Every person has their own imaginary line in the sand that has to be crossed before they go to war, and for many people this line was not crossed.

 

[Bruce]

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen.

Then marriage as you define it didn't exist in the US up until about halfway through the 19th century, considering the legal effects of coverture, and the shift towards a more feminist friendly form of marriage where women were not regarded as chattel wasn't a particularly religious one.

 

[barbzilla]

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen.

Then marriage as you define it didn't exist in the US up until about halfway through the 19th century, considering the legal effects of coverture, and the shift towards a more feminist friendly form of marriage where women were not regarded as chattel wasn't a particularly religious one.

Actually both existed, but you are correct that it wasn't until more recent years that it became just the one and not the other.

Regardless of if marriage started as a religious ceremony or as a legal contract, can we not both admit that people seem to view it with a dual nature? One end being the legal contract (the important end from my view point) and the other end being the religious aspect. What I am proposing is separating the two faces of marriage. Giving each face its own term (I don't care which is called marriage and which is not) and removing state control over the religious portion (so that the religious people have nothing to complain about) and removing religious claims on the state portion. This allows for A: churches to marry whomever they choose and B: any two people to be allowed to legally marry. Separation of church and state as intended in the constitution (well as written, not necessarily intended).

P.S. I am still kind of curious as to how what I said would imply that atheists couldn't be married. I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that statement, I am genuinely curious.

 

[Andrew_C]

Elvis Costello was a racist

At the time of his drunken racist outburst Elvis Costello was decked by a woman who rightly took offense to his comments. When he sobered up, he apologised for it and publicly recanted and rejected racism. Since then he has become an active campaigner against racism. I think it's fair to say that Elvis Costello has not been racist for a long time.

Orson Scott Card has not rejected his homophobic beliefs and he is still a board member of the homophobic pressure group National Organization for Marriage. The best you can say for him is that he no longer believes homosexuality should be criminalised.

The two cases are not comparable

 

[RJ 17]

Let me start by saying that I'm all for gay marriage. If they want to be as miserable as everyone else then hey, let them in the club.

But he does bring up a point that is often overlooked with regards to tolerance...the fact that there's two sides to it. We're supposed to show tolerance to people's different ways of thinking, different lifestyles, different sexual orientations, etc...yet why is it that we're not supposed to have tolerance towards someone's way of thinking that disagrees with what is PC (for lack of a better way of putting it, I'm kinda having trouble finding my words here)? We have to have tolerance towards homosexuality, but we're not supposed to have tolerance towards someone who disagrees with gay marriage? Isn't that persons viewpoint just as valid as it's opposite? By demanding they conform and accept gay marriage, spitting on and cursing their name if they refuse to do so...isn't that the same as when we (the we here being figurative, of course) were spitting on and cursing the names of those who were in favor of it?

Does a man not have the right to disagree with something based on religious grounds (as I'm assuming that's this guy's case seeing as how this all came out in an interview for The Mormon Times)? Are we supposed to be tolerant of other people's viewpoints only when they match up with our own, or are we supposed to be tolerant of everyone's viewpoints?

Granted, some viewpoints don't deserve to be tolerated. I doubt many people would argue for tolerance for the Nazi's or the KKK and, in truth, there are a lot of people out there who don't like the concept of gay marriage just because they hate homosexuals (I'm looking at you, Pat Robertson). But there's just as many people out there who have no problems with homosexuals in general, but just the concept of gay marriage because it goes against what they hold to be traditional family values. Should we not be tolerant of their viewpoints?

I don't know if Orson's views on the matter stem from a generic hate towards homosexuals or if he just disagrees with the concept of them getting married, but I do have to agree with his statement of "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." Which of course brings up the South Park line of "In here, intolerance will not be tolerated."

So, my fellow Escapists, will you tolerate someone's opposing view if it's based on a valid viewpoint and not just ignorant hate? Or are you going to show the same kind of ignorant hate by refusing to tolerate someone else's values and viewpoints that are opposed to yours? Again, I don't know if this guy's views are based off of hate or traditional values, I'm just posing the question to play devil's advocate.

Captcha: "Modern Love" Looks like Captcha was pro gay marriage. :3

 

[barbzilla]

Elvis Costello was a racist

At the time of his drunken racist outburst Elvis Costello was decked by a woman who rightly took offense to his comments. When he sobered up, he apologised for it and publicly recanted and rejected racism. Since then he has become an active campaigner against racism. I think it's fair to say that Elvis Costello has not been racist for a long time.

Orson Scott Card has not rejected his homophobic beliefs and he is still a board member of the homophobic pressure group National Organization for Marriage.

The two cases are not comparable

That is a fair point, but I wasn't trying to compare the two directly. I was making a statement that there are a great deal of personalities who entertain us who have beliefs (publicly held) and/or commit horrible acts that we forgive, forget, or never hear about who do not become vilified. I was making a point that only the people who become media targets end up being... well... targeted by people. I don't mean to say that OSC shouldn't be boycotted by those who feel it is needed, just that if you are going to boycott him for his actions/words, then you should also boycott others in entertainment with his beliefs.

 

[barbzilla]

Let me start by saying that I'm all for gay marriage. If they want to be as miserable as everyone else then hey, let them in the club.

But he does bring up a point that is often overlooked with regards to tolerance...the fact that there's two sides to it. We're supposed to show tolerance to people's different ways of thinking, different lifestyles, different sexual orientations, etc...yet why is it that we're not supposed to have tolerance towards someone's way of thinking that disagrees with what is PC (for lack of a better way of putting it, I'm kinda having trouble finding my words here)? We have to have tolerance towards homosexuality, but we're not supposed to have tolerance towards someone who disagrees with gay marriage? Isn't that persons viewpoint just as valid as it's opposite? By demanding they conform and accept gay marriage, spitting on and cursing their name if they refuse to do so...isn't that the same as when we (the we here being figurative, of course) were spitting on and cursing the names of those who were in favor of it?

Does a man not have the right to disagree with something based on religious grounds (as I'm assuming that's this guy's case seeing as how this all came out in an interview for The Mormon Times)? Are we supposed to be tolerant of other people's viewpoints only when they match up with our own, or are we supposed to be tolerant of everyone's viewpoints?

Granted, some viewpoints don't deserve to be tolerated. I doubt many people would argue for tolerance for the Nazi's or the KKK and, in truth, there are a lot of people out there who don't like the concept of gay marriage just because they hate homosexuals (I'm looking at you, Pat Robertson). But there's just as many people out there who have no problems with homosexuals in general, but just the concept of gay marriage because it goes against what they hold to be traditional family values. Should we not be tolerant of their viewpoints?

I don't know if Orson's views on the matter stem from a generic hate towards homosexuals or if he just disagrees with the concept of them getting married, but I do have to agree with his statement of "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." Which of course brings up the South Park line of "In here, intolerance will not be tolerated."

So, my fellow Escapists, will you tolerate someone's opposing view if it's based on a valid viewpoint and not just ignorant hate? Or are you going to show the same kind of ignorant hate by refusing to tolerate someone else's values and viewpoints that are opposed to yours? Again, I don't know if this guy's views are based off of hate or traditional values, I'm just posing the question to play devil's advocate.

Captcha: "Modern Love" Looks like Captcha was pro gay marriage. :3

I think what people are getting at with the boycott is that they don't want their funds to trickle down to the anti-gay movement groups. We should tolerate him in the way we treat the subject though (I.E. not throwing vitriol at him or his views), but that doesn't mean people have to support him financially.

I don't think it comes from a place of hate, I think he is a mormon and has those views because he is told that it is against god in his religion. That doesn't make it right, but we should support his right to his religious views at the same time. So, I don't mind people avoiding his material in response, but I do get a bit rankled at people's venomous words about him.

 

[Cookiegerard]

I have never read any of his books, had pretty much never heard of him before the film was announced, and didn't know about his view point on these things. But I just had a thought. Sure, boycotting the film sticks it to him, but what about everyone who worked on that film? And I don't just don't mean the actors and director, I mean everyone, cameramen, wardrobe, everyone. I'm pretty sure that every single member of the team doesn't have the same view as him. Besides, films based off books are never exact copies of one another (Look at World War Z for example, the closest thing in common with the book and the script is that ink was used.), and if there was a scene in Ender's Game where they mock and harass someone who is a homosexual (Again, I never read the book, all I know is that it has something to do with child soldiers, I think), chances are, unless it is really needed for the plot, they would take that bit out of the film.

It makes a whole lot more sense in my head what I am trying to say, but at the basest level, is it right to condemn something made by a large group of people because of the views of one person? Yes, the book was his work, and his alone, but the movie isn't.

But, from what I read and have heard, he is kind of a prat, I wouldn't put as bad as Frank Miller, but still a prat.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

Yeah, OSC is allowed to have his opinion but I think people forget that he's still a member of the National Organization for Marriage. So no, he hasn't given up fighting against same sex marriage. And to be asking for tolerance this late in the game when he's afraid of losing out on money for the movie and still shown no sign of tolerance, well that is indeed quite laughable.

I'm also really surprised at people who think he's entitled to people's money and insult those who boycott him. They very conveniently forget that the cake cuts both ways. In addition to OSC having his right to have an opinion, consumers have a right to not be a patron to his homophobia and bigotry. Unfortunately, the Escapist still has some homophobes in its closet.

 

[RJ 17]

I think what people are getting at with the boycott is that they don't want their funds to trickle down to the anti-gay movement groups. We should tolerate him in the way we treat the subject though (I.E. not throwing vitriol at him or his views), but that doesn't mean people have to support him financially.

I don't think it comes from a place of hate, I think he is a mormon and has those views because he is told that it is against god in his religion. That doesn't make it right, but we should support his right to his religious views at the same time. So, I don't mind people avoiding his material in response, but I do get a bit rankled at people's venomous words about him.

And I don't have a problem with that either (edit: not wanting their money to possibly go towards anti-gay foundations or movements (end edit)), I just don't like people being hypocritical by demanding others be tolerant of their viewpoints while they, themselves, refuse to tolerate the viewpoints of others.

 

[Bruce]

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen.

Then marriage as you define it didn't exist in the US up until about halfway through the 19th century, considering the legal effects of coverture, and the shift towards a more feminist friendly form of marriage where women were not regarded as chattel wasn't a particularly religious one.

Actually both existed, but you are correct that it wasn't until more recent years that it became just the one and not the other.

Regardless of if marriage started as a religious ceremony or as a legal contract, can we not both admit that people seem to view it with a dual nature? One end being the legal contract (the important end from my view point) and the other end being the religious aspect. What I am proposing is separating the two faces of marriage. Giving each face its own term (I don't care which is called marriage and which is not) and removing state control over the religious portion (so that the religious people have nothing to complain about) and removing religious claims on the state portion. This allows for A: churches to marry whomever they choose and B: any two people to be allowed to legally marry. Separation of church and state as intended in the constitution (well as written, not necessarily intended).

P.S. I am still kind of curious as to how what I said would imply that atheists couldn't be married. I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that statement, I am genuinely curious.

If marriage is by its nature a religious institution, then atheists by rejecting the very foundations of most religious authority by definition couldn't get married any more than gay people could. Atheists can't be joined by God, we don't believe in him.

As marriage is a legal institution however, such a restriction doesn't come into play. We can recognise that two people are married whether they got married in a church, a temple or a courthouse.

The problem with your two-name solution is separate but equal is never actually equal. Otherwise it wouldn't be separate.

The best solution of all is the simplest.

"Legally, its all the same thing with the same name. Your church doesn't get to set legal definitions."

The law should be by its nature secular, which is to say what religion has to say on what constitutes a marriage should be irrelevant.

Think of it this way, under Sharia law a Muslim is not allowed to drink - should national law be used to enforce that? No. Because what Sharia law says is irrelevant to national law.

 

[Quellist]

Fuck you Card, your still a bigot and admitting defeat doesnt make you any less of a bigot, so stop pretending you are less of a shitbag than you actually are. Since when did you have any Tolerance eh? If someone gave me a ticket to watch your shitty movie i'd wipe my arse on it, then i'd wash my arse!

 

[Lightknight]

Please keep in mind while reading my comments on this subject that I completely believe that gays deserve ALL of the rights and benefits that are obtained by a marriage license. I do not personally associate marriage licenses with religious marriage like so many people do. I think it's just the government doing what they do. So I am absolutely not defending any kind of anti-gay opinions or beliefs. I am merely explaining an opposing side and defending the importance of free speech having a safe environment to exist in.

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.

A boycott is just a form of protest, and people are boycotting because they don't like OSC, and they don't want him involved in their entertainment, and they don't want him getting any money, so that's probably what they'd like to change. No one is censoring him, they're just using their freedom of speech to criticize the things he said and express their desire for products made by someone else. Apparently that's censorship, though, since people keep acting like OSC is entitled to everyone seeing his movie and anyone refusing to go is in the wrong.

That's their prerogative. I just think this is a silly reason to organize an actual boycott. Like you said, it's a protest. It's a kind of weird protest of censorship. People should be free to voice their opinion without fear of people actively trying to oppress them for it. It's one thing to say, "I don't agree with this individual so I'm not going to give them my money" and another thing to say, "I don't agree with this individual so I'm going to organize as many people I can to financially hurt them." To actively try to harm someone can potentially be viewed as anti-free speech. If the point of the protest is to keep him and others from voicing their beliefs.

Then again, I've always considered the public reaction to be the natural repercussion for making particularly anti-social decisions. So I'm not entirely opposed to the public responding in such a way. Perhaps you'll just have the streisand effect and give OSC a significantly larger reception than the movie would have gotten otherwise like we saw with the Chic fil a debacle. I do believe some speech should warrant public criticism and perhaps even reaction. But this is just someone who believes their religion is being attacked. Again, that's a problem with the government using a term that is synonymous with a religious term because it once WAS the religious term. Yes, it isn't the same now, but that association is tricking people into preventing people from getting rights and benefits they should have.

It's an interesting development that new technologies have enabled society to censor its individuals in a much more meaningful way than the goverment can. That's a dangerous thing and our mob mentality can really abuse it. I am speaking up for OSC because I fear the impacts of censorship in general. I fear the impact that it could have on the likes of the Galileos of our times. The ones that are actually right but whose ideas are offensive now. I'm not saying OSC is that at all. I disagree quite strongly with his position as stated, but this is one of those things you've got to speak in favor of with people you disagree on to make sure protection is there for people who are right and are just thinking of new ideas.

Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion.

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong.

They're historically accurate. Marriage has almost always been a religious institution. The religion it's an institution of has varied wildly from very localized rituals to the more advanced belief systems but it has indeed always been a religious thing. It is a vow of commitment and did not have any government result unless you were royalty and trying to forge an alliance.

It is only relatively recent that the government has gotten involved at all. It only showed up in government when the Catholic Church was basically ruling the Holy Roman Empire in the power vacuum created by the fall of the Roman Empire. It was another way for the Church to control people from the government level and this is one of the specific reasons America was immigrated to by the Pilgrims. In the US, the government started issuing the marriage license to prevent black and white people from getting married. Worldwide, it started with the Catholic Church likewise wielding it on a political level. So I'm afraid you're factually wrong. The government took a page out of the Catholic Church's page of government to oppress its people and now you're defending it.

It isn't wrong that Marriage should be a religious institution. It is a vow and as such is spiritual in a lot of ways albeit without necessitating a deity to swear by.

 

[KOMega]

I'm seeing a lot of 'but he doesn't incorporate his hatred into his books' arguments from Card's defenders, which is actually incorrect. Regardless if your personal opinions, Ender's Game was the only book of his to be unambiguously well-received, and even then he incorporated portions of his own beliefs into them. I can't sight you sources but the link does exist that the 'Buggers', the primary antagonist race in the book, were named such because the term apparently referenced sodomy/sodomites.

Not really being big into slurs, I thought "Surely 'bugger' isn't some kind of slur," but, yeah, apparently it is/was. For anyone who, like me, was unaware: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugger
(edit: technically that might not be a slur, but, despite the multitudes of heterosexual mean and women who engage in anal and/or oral sex, I've can't recall ever hearing anyone refer to them as "sodomites"--if that's a common thing, somewhere, please correct me)

I'd still be willing to give him (or anyone, no matter how huge and obnoxiously stupid of a bigot) the benefit of the doubt and say that, without evidence of his intent, this may just be an uncomfortable coincidence, given the lack (to the best of my knowledge) of any other potentially anti-gay elements in the book and the fact that the enemies are insectoid and "buggers" could be used as "annoying things" as well. Although, with how unsubtle and ineptly-written Card's essays are, I admit that I may be giving him entirely too much credit.

Very interesting find and point, though, regardless of Card's intent.

I thought buggers was a racial slur against the giant alien bugs in the context of Ender's Game. Seems like a strange connection to sodomites.... o well.

Anyways, something just occurred to me... Does anyone buy his books anyways these days?
Like, if you were unaware of Card's views, do you see yourself buying his books because you see his name on them?

Not saying his books are bad or anything if anyone is a fan, but I can't say I would buy it anyways in favor of something else (so support or not, I would probably not have any effect anyways) and I'm wondering how many people actually have an effect on the boycott.

 

[Lightknight]

-Snip-

Interesting, I didn't read your post until after I posted my response above (yours was on the next page). We agree. Thanks for your input.

 

[Lightknight]

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen.

Then marriage as you define it didn't exist in the US up until about halfway through the 19th century, considering the legal effects of coverture, and the shift towards a more feminist friendly form of marriage where women were not regarded as chattel wasn't a particularly religious one.

Actually both existed, but you are correct that it wasn't until more recent years that it became just the one and not the other.

This, exactly this, is the problem with the marriage license being called a "marriage" license. The difficulty to distinguish between the religious form of it and the legal form is obvious.

And Bruce, those pagan rites are likewise religious. They're just not what we consider to be mainstream religious. At the very least, marriage has always been a cultural practice and almost never a government institution until the times stated. Again, in America it was literally established to prevent certain classes/races from intermarrying.