Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[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.

 

[theApoc]

Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, or at least not religious in the sense of belonging to any extant religion. So far as we are aware marriage predates history, and thus any religion we know about. Further marriages in earlier societies, such as in ancient Greece, didn't always require much in the way of the blessing of any particular gods.

Further even if your argument held true, for it to have any validity at all one would also have to deny heterosexual atheists the right to marry - which frankly the US government does not do.

Still further, even after banning atheist marriage you would still have to allow gay marriage in religions which allow it - as otherwise you would fall foul of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Except that the purpose of marriage has always been to join and expand families, consolidate fortunes, resources and control. The tradition of marriage has a very specific and well defined purpose in OUR society.

Marriage is not about religion, the religious aspect stems from a set of beliefs that people of the same sex should not be together in the same way people as the opposite sex. It has been tied to religion, but that is not the central point of the tradition making your point about athiests little more than hyperbole.

 

[barbzilla]

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.

A sentiment I can agree with wholeheartedly. Cheers!

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.

Okay, I see where the disconnect is. I don't intend my two part system to be equal. If someone gets married religiously, it is just that, a religious bond between two people as a promise to their god/gods/whatever. If someone gets married legally, it is just that, a legal contract between two people granting them all of the legal rights due to them. The church marriage would grant nothing other than something people seek by getting married in a church, the legal marriage would grant the legal rights. This way any two people who want the legal benefits of marriage could seek this out without offending any sort of religious extremist church group, and anyone who wants to be married before god, but not be included in some government database would be allowed to do so (provided it is within the church's religious doctrine).

The two are mutually exclusive in my proposed system, thus the need for separate names instead of calling them both marriage. This is basically how it works now, but it follows the same name either way. You can go get married at a courthouse and have all the legal benefits (well some people can, and that is the problem), but not be recognised as married by, say, a catholic church as it wasn't before god (in their eyes). Meanwhile someone can get married in a church, and if they didn't do the legal documents beforehand, it will not be considered a legal marriage and they will not be due the legal benefits of the marriage. All I am suggesting is to separate the names to show the disconnect.

I hope this helps to explain my meaning more thoroughly than I have managed to before, because I don't think we share opposing viewpoints, I just feel as though I'm not expressing mine well enough.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

What.... wait....
*goes and reads songmaster again*...
Yeah, there is definitely homosexuality in there, and it isn't treated horribly (though I can see some minor undertones of negativity, as well as some positive notes). I think you may want to check out his library a bit more thoroughly before tossing words about m8.

I was specifically talking about the Ender series (and the related Bean series). I haven't read outside that universe - which had its apex somewhere in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide and then went on a long downward slide thereafter. Card's "best" being kinda crappy, I never bothered to read anything else by him, not wishing to deal with frustration and disappointment.

I like his Ender series (other than the terrible 'new' one). The Bean series is pretty awful in comparison, not to mention fairly misogynistic - but that's another thread.

If Songmaster is better about that, then that's fine - it's one of his earlier books, before he started consulting with Nuns, so I wouldn't be shocked by that. However, I'm annoyed enough at the man that, unless I lack other things to read (I'm currently reading Cloud Atlas, since I liked the movie), I don't plan to return to his works.

Edit: Just read the rest of this page. Wow - we're like the only people still discussing Card and his books. For everyone else, this thread is now about gay marriage.

 

[Lightknight]

Except that the purpose of marriage has always been to join and expand families, consolidate fortunes, resources and control. The tradition of marriage has a very specific and well defined purpose in OUR society.

Marriage is not about religion, the religious aspect stems from a set of beliefs that people of the same sex should not be together in the same way people as the opposite sex. It has been tied to religion, but that is not the central point of the tradition making your point about athiests little more than hyperbole.

There is a difference between marriage as a religious institution and the legal/financial ramifications of it.

The marriage ritual is very religious and culturally based. It has always been so with all kinds of practices from the superstitious to the religious encircling it. The rest? That was business. The problem is that the distinction has become blurred, especially with the government calling it marriage and controlling part of it.

What I think we're talking about is a distinction between the ritual/vow/ceremony and the contractual union. Naming the license something else is a very easy thing. Making ignorant people understand the difference? That's a difficult if not impossible thing. As long as the same term as the religious institution is given to the government license, people will continue to think that laws made to change it are laws impacting or being made regarding their actual religious practices. You will get all kinds of people upset that way, not just bigots or anti-gays. Just because you have intellectualized the difference doesn't mean that people as a whole have or even can.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

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.

Ok. Do you guys really think that boycotting is discrimination? Or am I just reading this really poorly?

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.

Yeah... I do. And that was never part of the argument.

I hadn't heard of Chick-Fil-A, but now I will never buy from there.
I don't listen to 50 Cent, but I will never give him money.

 

[Ayay]

So the dude got no spine .I dont care what he belives in , thats his right , But not having the balls to stand for it , and in this case just to make money is just low. Well i think his plan will fail, I know i wont give him any money , dont care if the books or movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[bravetoaster]

You do not, in fact, have to tolerate someone declaring that you should be a criminal, because they are not living and letting live. If someone punches me in the mouth, I don't have to say, "Well, that's a fair opinion."

There's a very nice, very old notion I'm rather fond of: that people should be free to do whatever they like so long as they're not infringing on the freedom or rights of others. Card's welcome to be a bigot, but once he crossed the line when he started trying to infringe on the freedom of others; he can go fuck himself.

I like your example, as well, and I'd love to see an OSC apologist try to explain how you should tolerate that person's because they were just physically expressing their opinion that you should be assaulted.

 

[Lightknight]

You do not, in fact, have to tolerate someone declaring that you should be a criminal, because they are not living and letting live. If someone punches me in the mouth, I don't have to say, "Well, that's a fair opinion."

It's a fairly large leap between someone saying gays shouldn't be able to get a marriage license and saying that they should be incarcerated. I'd also posit that with the confusion over the term marriage being synonymous with a longer standing religious tradition (that the license WAS created to control), OSC should be seen as defending his faith, albeit erroneously, rather than trying to attack someone else.

Your scenario is a very different situation if the individual thought you were attacking them.

However, there ARE people who aren't just trying to defend what they feel is a religious institution. People who just hate gays. Nothing OSC has led me to believe he's one of those, but we should certainly come down hard on actual hate speech which this was not.

 

[bravetoaster]

However, there ARE people who aren't just trying to defend what they feel is a religious institution. People who just hate gays. Nothing OSC has led me to believe he's one of those, but we should certainly come down hard on actual hate speech which this was not.

His 'essays' (read: poorly structured, unfocused, inarticulate rants; look them up if you're unfamiliar) and role in NOM, trying to deny gay couples the right to get the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, don't strike you as illustrating that he hates people for being gay? (Or, if not hate, inexplicably and obstinately believes they should not be entitled to the same rights as the rest of the country because they are gay.)

NOM is not a religious organization and OSC's 'argument' was never religious in nature. If it sounds like I'm overstating it, look it up.


Side note: Is there actually some religion somewhere that has its "definition" of marriage being changed? ...and why would that matter? If you think [your deity/whatever of choice] regards you and your partner(s) as a special union, do other people's [holy/spiritual] unions affect yours?
Or is the religious issue simply something like "We have traditionally done X this way and think it would be bad to change it because of Y reason."? If that's the case, debate away. And here's a rather good article: http://religiomunda.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/some-reflections-on-scotus-doma-and-christian-concern/

 

[barbzilla]

What.... wait....
*goes and reads songmaster again*...
Yeah, there is definitely homosexuality in there, and it isn't treated horribly (though I can see some minor undertones of negativity, as well as some positive notes). I think you may want to check out his library a bit more thoroughly before tossing words about m8.

I was specifically talking about the Ender series (and the related Bean series). I haven't read outside that universe - which had its apex somewhere in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide and then went on a long downward slide thereafter. Card's "best" being kinda crappy, I never bothered to read anything else by him, not wishing to deal with frustration and disappointment.

I like his Ender series (other than the terrible 'new' one). The Bean series is pretty awful in comparison, not to mention fairly misogynistic - but that's another thread.

If Songmaster is better about that, then that's fine - it's one of his earlier books, before he started consulting with Nuns, so I wouldn't be shocked by that. However, I'm annoyed enough at the man that, unless I lack other things to read (I'm currently reading Cloud Atlas, since I liked the movie), I don't plan to return to his works.

Edit: Just read the rest of this page. Wow - we're like the only people still discussing Card and his books. For everyone else, this thread is now about gay marriage.

I can respect that, I have no qualms with people who are uninterested in his work not buying it. I just wanted to point out that he does handle some gay material without being horrible towards them. Not that this excuses his actions and stance on gay marriage mind you.