Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie 1448
interval1066 writes "A story in Wired describes Orson Scott Card's quest for tolerance in response to a boycott for Gavin Hood's film adaption of Ender's Game, saying that 'The gay marriage issue is moot' in a statement to Entertainment Weekly. Card is a long time anti-gay and defense of marriage activist. 'His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human. The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies, and a way of evading responsibility for the impact of their words and actions.' I guess he didn't see this film and the box-office importance of wide appeal coming, did he?"
Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.
Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.
Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of his views on this particular issue are evident in the novel, except perhaps in the naming of the aliens - and that might just be coincidence.
So make the film, and ignore where it comes from. No need to dismiss a story just because of it's author.
Really, practically every author before 1900 was an extreme racist.
You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.
Re:less than human? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
He'd have been better off not saying anything. I'm sure I've read about him being a bigot in the past, but I'd actually forgotten about it. I can understand people not liking things that they feel are too "different", but I can't understand why he'd actively campaign against people who are different from him..
This is like some weird, modified version of the Streissand effect at work.
See My Movie (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?
Um, no.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not codified into law, huh? It doesn't have massive numbers of government benefits hooked to it, huh?
Poison fruit (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit? Many a work of science fiction has been around the theme of asking how high of a price are we willing to pay. It is the age old question of whether the ends justify the means.
Granted, this is only a work of entertainment, but his pleadings for tolerance are not dissimilar from this theme; We are being asked to set aside our morality in exchange for some good or service. I don't think though that a work of fiction, regardless of quality, is worth my freedom and liberty, and even less so for others. Supporting this man's works would mean supporting something I find morally objectionable, even vile.
I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights. Orson Scott Card -- you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I will not support you, and I urge any who place any value at all on civil rights to do the same. We cannot overlook this man's desire to force his own morality on others for our own... entertainment.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.
The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message. Which he most certainly has [ornery.org]:
In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.
Translation: "Your entire life has to be a lie because I'm ignorant." And no, I do not go see Tom Cruise movies because he uses his stardom and money he gets from those movies to push a very dangerous religion [youtube.com]! There are some issues where I flat out draw the line. I'm not boycotting Clint Eastwood because he's said some politically stupid stuff but there are some issues like homosexuality where I feel like I'm promoting ignorance if I promote those who think homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. It's an egalitarian issue in my mind and I'm not going to see Ender's Game nor will I read the rest of the Shadow series.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, believe it or not, those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.
Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue. Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem. Case in point, a lot of people enjoy Disney movies and Ford cars despite Walt Disney and Henry Ford being nasty antisemitic pro-nazi nutjobs.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's less that he has dumb opinions and more that he directly financially supports people working to make things worse. That's a legitimate reason to not give him money, isn't it?
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
his answer is really perplexing. it's like just because his opinion side lost and the issue is settled in courts that somehow his opinions on the issue no longer should matter to other people... did he change his opinion on the issue? apparently not. why the fuck even make a statement like that? should have just kept his mouth shut.
i don't really see what people see in the novel either... which is the reason I'm not going to see it, not the apparent fact that he is an idiot(ok, I saw the trailer and that's another reason).
Re:Really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I think you cross a line when you call for the violent overthrow of the government for the crime of treating people equally. I wasn't aware that Card had done that or advocated to criminalize/keep criminalized homosexual behaviour so the the government could jail anyone who dared to admit they were gay.
I don't think I need to actually consciously boycott Card. I was already tired of his endless rehashing of the Book of Mormon in every thing he writes. These (new to me) revelations about his bigotry have made anything with his name of it completely unappealing.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage is not a "human right"...
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should rethink that statement. Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
I mean... Mary and Joseph... Were quite married, you know?
Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance. He sincerely believes that his personal storm-god objects to homosexuality. You (and I) happen to believe that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever the hell they want with each other. Both of those express nothing but an opinion, with the one no more valid than the other. We would argue that we have the "right" to choose. He would argue that yes, we do, but one of those ways gives you a complimentary handbasket for your trip downstairs.
See the movie or don't, but we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.
Messages of Enders game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message.
Sometimes I hear this criticism, and I don't get it. That's the point of art. If it doesn't have a message, what's the point?
Your objection is that it has a message you disagree with. In that sense, I agree with Card. It is intolerance. And closed-mindedness. If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.
Now, I'm completely against him on the gay marriage issue (and on most issues, really), but why the hell would I have a problem with him voicing his opinions? That's how we get rid of bad ideas. We listen to the arguments, and we refute them. The best way of making a point against racism, for example, is letting the KKK talk and make asses of themselves. We only stop them when they move beyond talking.
Re:Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
The racist views of pre-1900 authors and Shakespeare can be more easily dismissed because our society as a whole has decided those beliefs are wrong and no longer relevant in the big picture. We're no longer fighting on a large scale for civil rights and most of our society can look back on those beliefs as antiquated. However, the fight for gay rights and marriage equality is still going on and is highly relevant to our society, so Card's beliefs are fair game for criticism.
Whether or not he expressed his beliefs in his books or in the upcoming movie is irrelevant. Card is still very much alive to benefit financially from both and from the wider exposure the movie can generate for him. Since he actively campaigns for anti-gay laws and defense of marriage bills, providing him additional financial support and publicity for a cause I am directly opposed to is not an action I plan on taking. Ignoring the author is not an option for me and many others.
Wow, did he ever call it: (Score:5, Insightful)
From 2004 [ornery.org]:
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?
Re:Really?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that what it was?? I was reading some book years ago and about a third of the way through I realized it was a story from The Book of Mormon (family converted when I was 14) that was Sci-Fi'd up a bit and laughed. I'll have to see if I still have it.
[John]
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners.
And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.
And furthermore, the government has nothing to do with your "social ritual". Holy matrimony is a religious institution that the government does not regulate. Civil marriage is a contract between two people that the government administers. Just because people use the word "marriage" to refer to both of them does not mean that they are the same thing.
Re:Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance.
That's crap.
If they were saying he should be locked up or silenced, or tried to prevent him from him expressing his views then you'd have a point.
But merely calling someone a hypocrite is not intolerance.
we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.
That's your opinion and I'm going to claim that it's misguided. But that doesn't make me intolerant either. It's not like I'm calling for you to be modded down (I'm not).
Re:Wow, did he ever call it: (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's able to see the common sense in the situation ahead of time, but not actually able to practice it. Not sure if that makes him a visionary, an idiot, or both.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
You call the scheme of picking just one alternate sexuality scheme, promoting it above everything else, and banning the rest, including fully natural behaviour -- "equal"?
A vast majority of animals, and most human cultures other than graeco-roman allow polygamy, usually as the default mode. By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else. And now, unless you follow the deviation of restricting yourself to just one partner, you go to prison in most countries.
Up until late 19th century, the age of sexual/marriage majority matched being a biological adult. Yet these days, this natural behaviour is considered the most heinous crime that must be eradicated at all costs, including curbing all civil liberties. Before, people acted with revulsion only to sexual relations with an actual child -- today, if a woman of this age sends her naked photo to the father of her child, she goes to jail for "pedophilia".
Re:Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I read this nonsence. Basically the author is trying to find an excuse as to why a talented author, a winner of multiple awards for his works would come out against something as nice and progressive as Gay Marriage. So, he went out to destroy his character...... by comparing Ender to... Hitler!
Oy Vey, if this is his entire arguments to call a man an "asshat" -- these people need serious help....
Re:Tolerate whoever you like (Score:4, Insightful)
Ender's game is a good book, but if any sci-fi author will be regarded as one of the american greats, then it will be Frank Herbert for Dune.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my head, what youre doing to him is on par with what he is doing to homosexuals. Similarly you also have the "i do it because its right"-justification.
Is that a joke? He has a right to his religion. I get upset when that belief infringes on other people's rights. The Federal government has over a thousand laws referring to marriage. Many of those laws benefits couples living together like social security benefits, inheritance rights, etc. I am advocating this from an egalitarian standpoint that those people who are in love with each other are treated like any other pair of human beings consensually in love with each other. And yes, I think that trumps Mr. Card's horseshit religion or his lack of his ability to sit down with his dumbass children and say "Look, two people can love each other no matter what sex they are." But because he's afraid some bearded cloud God is going to fire and brimstone us, I cannot promote equal rights among human beings?
My justification isn't "I do it because it's right" you idiot, my justification is I do it because these laws are ridiculously unfair to a subset of the people who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of a secular government.
If you want to call it a "civil union" or whatever, that's fine. But I don't want employers or government offices calling some people "married" and other people "civil unioned" because that can lead to "second class" treatment and promotes discrimination among employers. In the eyes of the government, two humans should be able to marry each other with equal treatment and equal labeling.
Calling me intolerant on this issue makes no sense. I support freedom of religion but I'm not going to stand for some Christian version of sharia law in what claims to be a secular government.
Capitalism suffers from a lack of responsibility to know what you are supporting. A small group of people boycotting this movie is merely informing people what they are supporting. Just like I would boycott a company that pollutes.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?
No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with. You can refuse to put dollars in the pocket of someone you disagree with, fine. But in general it's like refusing to read the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a slaveholder.
Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.
He can have my tolerance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I loved loved loved "Ender's Game" as a youth, but 10 years ago, when I discovered Orson Scott Card's blog [ornery.org] and his perpetual stream of scientifically illiterate bigoted ravings, it really tainted everything with his name on it for me. Suddenly, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," and "Xenocide" were no longer deep books about ethical conundrums, but shallow stories where ethical conflicts just happen with depth given to them by the reader--because there's no way Card's shallow, binary mind could possibly comprehend the many ethical dimensions of the events he describes in his stories.
As for tolerance. You are correct, I am completely intolerant of Card's intolerance. I am choosing to not give my patronage to the film adaptation of his book because his personal views and political activism have soiled the whole thing for me; however, I fully support his right to voice those views. By contrast, Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights. So I find the attempts by many online to draw an equivalency between the intolerance of those participating in the boycott and Card's intolerance extremely weak.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and tolerance he can have. Tolerance does not mean putting money in his pocket. Not going to see his movie is not being intolerant. It is simply choosing to see another movie and tolerating others seeing that one.
Disney and Ford are dead. When Card dies this issue will go away unless his children are hateful bigots as well.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those things are like handing a bigot money.
I don't have to buy Jefferson a slave to read his works, I don't have to pay an artist to see his work in a museum. I do have to give Card money to see his film, he will use that money against people who I like.
Boycott != Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to say, "I don't think people should spend money on this"?
I mean, sure, I'm okay with "letting the KKK talk". Does that mean I have to pay admission to hear them? Am I not allowed to say, "I don't think you should bother paying admission to that KKK rally"?
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ZERO equivalency. Making the Constitutionally-protected choice to freely associate or not associate with someone because of their political or religious beliefs by simply not buying a movie ticket is in no way the same thing as supporting the government incarcerating people for their private lifestyle. It boggles my mind that you can see these two things as equivalent.
Re:Really?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tolerance? The book is all about training kids to genocide!
Not to mention the LDS propaganda that the Savior of the World is a Mormon kid born in defiance of the rules against having more than 2 kids.
Re:Poison fruit (Score:5, Insightful)
There's quite a bit of difference between human experimentation and entertainment.
STOP RIGHT THERE. I wasn't commenting on entertainment. I was commenting on exactly the portion of his post that I QUOTED. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't see that, you should really have your vision checked out. While technically a Godwin's law effect, the step was from one reprehensible group having data that helps society to another reprehensible group with the same. You may not like it, but the comment was on target, even though it included the Nazi reference (because his hypothetical HAS happened in the past and to forget it is a disservice).
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem.
No, an Ad Hominem attack is not what is in play here. We're discussing whether it is morally justified to support a person or organization whose profit from goods and/or services sold will be used in furtherance of the oppression of a political minority. Mr. Card is the example under discussion.
But tolerance is not the same as acceptance, and this is where you have made a critical flaw in your reasoning. Tolerance means allowing them to participate in the discussion, to excercise free speech. It does not mean we should accept that their position has merit. I tolerate people who reject the theory of evolution, but I do not accept their position is valid. They're still nutjobs. I do not fund organizations that are anti-evolution out of some misguided notion that I must be tolerant of their viewpoint.
And as far as people enjoying Disney movies and Ford cars... well, they may be ignorant, or simply not care enough, or lack alternatives. But that's another kind of logical fallacy -- just because people do it doesn't make it right, and it's no argument for the furtherance of those activities. We all pick and choose our battles -- we can't fight for every righteous cause. But that's no argument for not fighting at all. If I choose to tell Mr. Card to fuck off today, but go to a Chic Fil A tomorrow, that doesn't mean I don't support gay rights... it just means I place more value on not being hungry than not being entertained.
Re:Really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.
I can enjoy art without making a financial contribution to the artist. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp in the age of RIAA and copyright maximalists, but it was only recently that art became a work for hire, and throughout most of human history art was something you did to pass the time once the business of staying alive was completed. Our ancestors made music and beat drums in the evening because the hunting and gathering of food was done; It was to promote tribal unity, to express emotion. But there was no profit in it. Art will continue well after capitalism is nothing more than a footnote in our history books.
But until it is, we should continue to make educated decisions about what purposes to which our money will be used once it leaves our hands. Some may decide that the cost of the entertainment of watching Mr. Card's work exceeds that of the civil liberties of homosexuals -- that the benefit exceeds the harm. That is their right, and we must respect it.
However, if someone takes the extra step of being socially responsible and not giving Mr. Card money to continue his campaign of bigotry, that should be commended. And I am on the side that works of entertainment are not worth the oppression of a polical minority.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I skimmed the essay linked from the summary [ornery.org]. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.
The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, but I have quibbles.
You depict this as a literary cop-out, but in fact it's no small matter for the writer to create this space where the reader can import their own baggage and make the story their own. The sustained theme of Ender's Game is manipulation and counter manipulation, and how manipulation flows from point A to point Z through various waypoints. It's about how the rationality of the individual becomes embedded in the group and takes on political dynamics. His story is not so hollow that you feel your sitting in a curtained booth having your palms read by some fat, cynical, overdressed, sharp-eyed, post-menopausal woman who sized you up as you took your seat in a New York microsecond.
That said, his homophobic blog rantings rate among the worst drivel I've ever forced myself to wade halfway through.
Agatha Christie's Top 10 Racist Moments [thoughtcatalog.com]. Christie came to mind because I read an account by one of her contemporaries of not being able endure a social dinner in her company.
Tolerance? If he's going to write these things, I hate his guts to the point where I would step up and excuse myself from the dinner table, damn the tuxedos. I don't wish him ill in any overt way. I just hope he self-selects himself into a like-minded coterie of the small minded and is never heard from again, unless he chooses to embrace a different path, placing a higher weight on the fallout of how he proposes to arrange the affairs of others to appease his own spastic bristles.
He's in a bit of a commercial pickle, because much of the audience for science fiction where the driving themes are non-romantic are too sophisticated to appreciate his personal politics. I say most because there has always been the other contingent within our ranks.
Dr. William Shockley on Race, IQ, and Eugenics [youtube.com]
Somehow I doubt the Shockleys of this world amount to a driving force behind opening-weekend box office receipts.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners."
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
Re:Poison fruit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's not the half of it (Score:5, Insightful)
I just thought about what might happened if someone with beliefs like Orson's ever got hold of the ubiquitous surveillance of the government. Picture someone with such strong beliefs about "sending a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior" having control over the NSA.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's one of the things available to you to protest.
So, you think a free and open exchange of ideas should translate into a free and open exchange of money? That people should somehow enrich him because it has nothing at all to do with his very vocal political views?
Why should they reward him?
Has it occurred to you there are people who do exactly this? Christian groups have called on the boycott of banks [christianpost.com] because they supported gay pride events. It's [marketfaith.org]hardly [usanewsfirst.com] an [religiontoday.com] isolated [dailymail.co.uk] occurence [americanvision.org]. Hell, when people started boycotting Chik-A-Fil a bunch of other people started deliberately going there.
So, you think if you actively works against, say, purple people having rights, that purple people should enrich you in other endeavors? Why exactly? Out of kindness or stupidity? You have no right to expect people you have publicly stated are evil and should have no rights to buy your product.
But let's not pretend that Christians and other groups don't actively boycott things which they deem offensive. People choose to vote with their wallets all the time -- do you really think if Al Qaeda released a feature film that people should go see it? Why would you line the pockets of someone who hates you?
I'm sorry, but Orson Scottt Card is publicly on record as being a douchebag who campaigned against the rights of other people. To expect that group of people to say "oh well, the one has nothing to do with the other " and go to his movie is ridiculous.
OSC is free to hold his bigoted opinions, and people are free to choose to not pay money to see this movie. He's an idiot if he thinks 'tolerance' means people should forget about what he's done in the past and pay money to see it.
This amounts to "waaah, I hated those people for so long and now they won't give me money". Well, duh!
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
Actually, it's 12 states, plus the District of Columbia. And furthermore, it was 3 states, Washington, Maine, and Maryland who passed via a direct vote of the people, and 6 more, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, who passed a vote in the legislature, representing the will of their constituents. Prop 8 in California passed because the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church spent untold millions of dollars campaigning for it. Polls in California before and since the vote show a decided majority of Californians support gay marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
The fed should not stay out of it. One of the express goals of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses. That is exactly what is happening here. Saying that anyone should "stay out of it" is the same as saying, "We're doing a good job of marginalizing these people right now, don't go and do something that would change the status quo."
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind, that's just one of many. Card has written many, many, many times on this subject -- even arguing that homosexual acts should be criminalized, that an adult willfully engaging in sex he doesn't find acceptable with other consenting adults should go to *jail* and be deemed an unacceptable part of society.
Not all hate speech is going to say 'faggot' and 'burn in hell' and stuff like that: those extreme positions are also supported and maintained by more intellectual and softly spoken declarations of the inhumanity of the minority and supporting that it has no right to be seen as a peer because its difference is too different to allow.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
How so?
I am not encouraging the use of Law against him or people like him. That is what he does. I am only suggesting people not give him money. I am not suggesting we overthrow the government to prevent him from doing what he likes, again he advocated that.
You can't see how that is not as bigoted?
I tolerate him, I hope he gets better, but I don't want to give him my money.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, the state sure profits, why the state makes money running orphanages, paying for the foster system, and operating prisons.
Nobody else is getting rich off that system.
Just the state.
Not sure how you figure it's the *state* making money on this. Actually, it's the Prison/Industrial complex making all the money. Even with the kids [wikipedia.org].
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, it's basically the philosophy of guilt. Do what ever you have to to succeed as long as you feel bad about it afterwards.
Re: Really?!? (Score:1, Insightful)
You are seriously deluded or misinformed if you think the military wants society's rejects.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean I need to give you my money when I disagree with you and think you're an idiot. I won't prevent you from selling your stuff to other people, but I sure as hell won't reward you by buying it.
Wait, you have a right to my money? What right would that be again? It's my money, I have a finite amount of it, and it is my right to spend it on what I want for whatever reason I choose. If I think you're an offensive prick, that is going to factor into my decision.
I have the right to disagree with you and withhold my money from you -- I'm under no obligation to give you money for any reason whatsoever. And if your free speech offends me, my remedy is to not buy your crap by exercising my freedom of choice.
If you don't like that fact, then you should refrain from so publicly making those claims if you don't want to live with the consequences of me thinking you're an asshole. If you campaign and say I shouldn't have rights, my rational response as a consumer is to not buy your stuff.
Do you think Jews should buy from Nazi's because it would be mean? Why should they provide money to people who hate them? Good luck with that.
Peaceful? Really? "... any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down ...". This man actively spouted that these people are evil and deserve no rights, and you think they should reward him by seeing his film?
I'm not saying he should be arrested for the stuff he says, but he can damned well live with the fact that he has offended people who don't wish to spend money on his product.
Wow, an ad homenim attack -- here's one for you: You sir, are a fucking moron and a douchebag.
Not spending my money on the product of your labor when I disagree with you is my right. Expecting that I will buy your crap when you spout hatred towards me is irrational and childish.
I don't owe him or anybody else a living, and expecting that I should spend money his stuff is stupid.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
the LGBT were angry about not being allowed to sign a contract covering what everybody else had covered (such as inheritance, common properties, pensions etc.), not about the provisions for polygamy or polyandry, and not about legal provisions for whom they can choose as sex partners, that was fixed a few years ago.
If that were true, they would have accepted a civil unions law that gave civil unions 100% equality with marriage. I have yet to meet a gay couple that would have accepted a civil union, even if it was legally equal to marriage in every way. Most would claim some bullshit about the "separate but equal" issues in the civil rights era, where a water fountain for blacks was dirty and unmaintained while the "white's only" water fountain was new and shiny. I call it bullshit because if a law says two things are equal, they are equal, period. It's not like inheritance laws for gays can get dirty or leak. These are not physical objects.
When I would explain that "separate but equal" only applies to physical objects, they would say that they wanted to be "married", not unionized. So I ask them was stopping them from putting on white dresses, saying vows, exchanging rings, smearing cake on each other's faces, throwing a party and telling everyone they know that they are married? What difference does it make what the government called it?
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
This is not about equal rights. If it were, they could have had it years ago with little resistance. This is about revenge and punishing those they hate; religious people.
Don't mod this down because you don't like it. Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
Re:Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.
Slashdot isn't the place for a deep discussion of Shakespeare, but I'm going to, anyway. It's arguable (and is regularly argued) that Shakespeare was not actually anti-Semitic. Shylock is portrayed as a villain, it's true, but his speech, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?" shows him (at least in that passage) as a sympathetic human, not a villain, and more generally, the rest of the speech, where he declares that he'll act just as horribly as his persecutors do (and proceeds to do so, driving the play) can be seen as a character's reaction to a bigoted society, rather than of the author's hatred of Jews. Shakespeare had some outright villains who did evil just to do evil, but generally his worst characters (and I'm thinking of Iago and Shylock specifically) had excellent, rational motivations for doing the evil things they did. His writing of them was not based on hatred of their races, but on how society had shaped them into tools for evil.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the women involved.
FTFY
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, it worked pretty well for C.S. lewis and the new testament.
Re: Really?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lumpy is a idiotic troll, and whoever voted him up should feel bad, but during the height of the Iraq occupation they were taking anything they could get to pass their QA. And they had to keep lowering the tests. Simply put, they had to hire X amount of people for a shit job nobody wanted. People desperate for work fit the bill.
Historically, the poor get sent to war. Ideally though, yeah, the military wants the best of the best. And they usually get made into officers and get the fuck out of areas where bullets are flying.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well. You can be bitchy about it all you want.
I think if you had any ability to comprehend what you read after you think you saw a "Conservative, Gay hating, Fucktard" post something you might have noticed that I specifically pointed out at the beginning of the post that I was not stating the right or wrong of the current situation at all.
Just that "Technically" it is in fact "Equal" and therefore "Non Discriminatory".
So step down from your box of "Feel Good Rage" and listen.
Personally by the way, I think that government should have nothing to do with marriage at all.
Marriage by a church should in no way be recognized by the state. If the state wants to confer certain things to those who apply to be legally bound together by the state they can of course. Though it should have nothing to do with what ceremony they want to perform in their church.
There would be no problem at that point. The State could state what does and does not constitute a "Civil Union" and that should not include anything religious or have anything in it that cares about the sexual orientation of the members of the union or their sex.
Churches that want to perform gay marriages may. Those that choose not to may. And none of it would have any state recognized legal meanings.
Marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the conceptual basis for your statement, but I disagree with your overall point. Well, specifically I agree with you that I am against the existence of civil unions.
However, I am also against the existence of marriage as a state-regulated legal construct for anyone.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
Exactly. Having the government involved in defining this most intimate of interpersonal relationships is a horrible idea. If labels really matter to people, then let them choose a religious/group affiliation that will give them a ceremony/label for their relationship. However, none of these labels should carry the force of law. You could therefore get your heterosexual-only marriage at the Catholic church, or your het/homo marriage at an Episcopalian church.
In case you were wondering if this is an instance of Poe's Law: I practice what I advocate. My partner and I decided we wished to have a lifelong exclusive commitment but we did not want the government to define our relationship for us. So, we setup health care powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, wills, etc, and then gave each other a ring.
Oh, and we're heterosexuals living in a non-common-law marriage state. Not that it matters.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
I agree with you: let's not allow gay marriage under law—in fact, let's not allow any legal concept of marriage at all. Sounds like you would be fine with that, because no one will be able to force your chosen religion to violate its tenets to label any nonadherents as "married". And if some people are really desperate for the government to define the parameters of their relationship for them, then I suppose that allowing the legal concept of civil unions might be an option (for both gays and straights).
But no marriage under law.
Re:Really?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, sweety, it's not. But I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. Judgement is always based on your opinions, that's why it's called "judgement", not "fact finding". Prejudice is a particular form of judgement where your opinions are based on unfounded assumptions. Since Card has made it quite clear how he feels about gay rights, assumptions that he is anti-gay are well founded.
Or if you meant that judging somebody because of that person's opinions is prejudice, well then you're still wrong. Again, it would only be prejudiced if you were judging based on unfounded assumptions about that person's opinions. For instance, if I judged you to be a bigot because I assumed you were anti-gay, that would be prejudice, since you haven't specifically expressed your feelings about gay rights. But, one more time now, Card has clearly expressed his feelings about gay rights, and so judging him based on those expressed feelings is no prejudice.
Re:Really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
Marriage is made-up, and religion doesn't own it. Marriage predates Christianity. Even if we did decide that Christianity did own religion, the Bible defines marriage in a whole bunch of ways that we don't even recognize today.
You don't get to decide what marriage is; we all do. And as a group, we've decided that marriage includes gay marriages. Support is overwhelming, besides a few scared trolls like yourself. It will be passed in all 50 states; it will be recognized at the federal level; it is inevitable at this point. So get used to it and fuck off.
Let me ask you this: how does 2 guys or 2 women getting "married" affect you in any way? It won't happen in your church, because you clearly come from a group of bigots, so you can't whine about that. You won't have to go to the wedding, because despite your claims to the contrary, I don't believe that you have any gay friends. So what the fuck is your objection? You don't like losing the word "marriage"? The concept of "marriage" is special to you? Well hell, maybe that explains why gay people want one too!
--Jeremy
Re: Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, many states quietly started down that path way back in the 1990's and 2000's. unions started negotiating coverage for "partners". Adoption agencies wouldn't adopt to "gay couples" but to one partner or the other. Some states even started offering Civil Unions....
EXCEPT... For that pesky little DOMA law in 1996 that made all those small steps ILLEGAL TO RECOGNIZE at the Federal level. And set off a chain of counter laws and State CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to FORCE employers and insurance companies to VOID the fairly negotiated steps taken. That's what happened here in Michigan, as soon as the ink was dry on our "marriage" amendment, they went straight for University professor unions that negotiated "+ 1" style "no questions" coverage for partners.
So in short, its not the "gays" that started this open fight... It's the "moralists" that are actively UNDOING any small progress and actively trying to use the LAW against gays. Now that the fight is in the open, after the LAW said gay couldn't be made illegal anymore, why go back to living in shadows??
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the only HONEST reason why we'd need a "civil union" that's 100% equal to marriage but not marriage is to enshrine the religious bigotry of these Christians into law, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. And that, in turn, would be basically admitting that gays are not protected by the Constitution. Would you make such an admission? Could you afford to dare to?
It's not about forcing bigoted Christians to recognize anything; it's about forcing the state to recognize that it is not at liberty to appease them. And that is a fight we all have a stake in. "First they came for gays..."
No one cares about what Fred Phelps thinks, but everyone loses if Uncle Sam bends over for him.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that surprising? TBOM is America's first Science Fiction novel, after all! Steel swords and old world plants and animals in America, magnetic compasses, a Middle East with unrecognizable geometry -- it's clearly an alternate history steampunk novel ahead of its time.
So OSC didn't have far to go. With that said, I think Ender's Game is a decent novel. Perhaps his only decent novel. Not exactly a unique idea even as SF novels go, but enjoyable enough to read.
In the end, it's like Chick-Fil-A. It's hyper-Christian (closed on Sunday), its founder/owner is fond of gay-bashing, but it has damn good chicken and the actual people who work there are often lovely and courteous. Boycotting CFA over this issue is probably overkill. Ditto boycotting Ender's Game, the movie, or OSC books in general (aside from the fact that many of them are mediocre, which is a good reason not to buy anything).
After all, what's really at fault isn't any individual person here, it is "religion" -- believing scriptural dogma just because, for better or worse, to the complete exclusion of common sense, concern for human dignity and rights, and the simplest of honest ethical principles. All religious scriptures are fantasies, science fiction, mythologies, stories, and generate an enormous amount of pain and suffering in the world through the agency of those raised within the religions who cannot seem to differentiate fantasy from reality, or use anything like actual human judgment or rational ethical principle to make ethical decisions.
Sigh.
rgb
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
Perhaps. But why exactly do those bigoted Christian get to own the word marriage, and have that ownership explicitly endorsed by the government? Why is their bigoted sacrament more equal than, say, a Universal Unitarian sacrament, in a nation of laws under the 1st Amendment?
The answer is a certain Christian minority feels entitled to special privileges that "must" be endorsed by the federal government, and if we dare point that out they will whine that we are being narrow-minded because...they want to call us names, lacking an actual defensible rationale. I refuse to accept their claim for special status.
Furthermore, you are wrong. The traditional marriage is about child-creation, child-rearing, inheritance rights, contracts, property, love, lust, household creation, economic sharing. All. Of. The. Above. To accept a narrow definition is to piss on the traditional marriage as understood in practice for thousands of years.
Re:Really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is America. In theory, we 'overthrow the government' every 2 or 4 years. It's called regime change. I don't see anything odious about his statement.
Welcome to Corporate America, where the inhabitants are offered a slate of different talking heads every so often. The policies and direction never change, just the faces who occupy the offices. Oops, sorry, time for my meds...
Re: Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: if you put money in the pocket of any activist bigot, you're guaranteed to be putting money toward his cause. If you find the idea of donating to an anti-gay campaign repugnant, it's not going to be less repugnant if you're doing it through a proxy.
Re:Really?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
But one could argue that a polygamist should be entitled to have all his wives covered by the insurance offered by his job and that the polygamist should be able to use income splitting on his taxes with all his wives. That's the point trying to be made here. Why is one type of relationship the only valid one. Why not allow marriages between more than 2 people?
We should allow it, honestly. There's no compelling reason not to.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
It offends me.
And that which offends should be illegal. Make smoking illegal because it offends me. Some people are offended by alcohol. Lets start a second Prohibition, the first went so well. Some are offended by porn, or obesity. Lets make them illegal.
How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way?
How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way?
How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point.
1) I own ANWAR. The US is owned by the people, not the politicians. I have the right to be offended by someone mistreating my property. And yes, I've seen ANWAR, have you?
2)I'm from Texas, and one-day, my daughter or granddaughter (I have neither now, but I might, someday), may be in Texas. So something that takes away "her" rights in TX would harm her, so that's offensive. I also empathize with the millions in TX under that law. For someone who claims offense at everything, you have a remarkable lack of empathy.
3) What does taxing rich people have to do with this? Most aren't "offended" by taxes on the rich, unless you are talking about increasing taxes on them to give cuts and subsides to the rich, which does *directly* affect them.
How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?
It doesn't. Until you go to sign up for insurance and the form says "spouse" not "partner" and you either have to fill it out with a chance of rejection of all claims later because your partner is not a "spouse", or spend $10,000 on lawyers up front to verify legality.
So much in the US assumes "spouse" of a married partner, that transitioning to a concept of a civil union is, by definition, not equal. To claim this obviously inequal situation is equal is a lie. Lying to me is offensive.
And marriage is not just a Christian concept.
And neither is Christmas, Easter, and so many others, but Christianity claims them all now. Winter Solstice celebrations pre-date Christianity, as do spring-rebirth celebrations and fall festivals of death (all-saints day being the tie-in there). If marriage is not Christian, why do so many opposing unions claim religion as the reason? They want to defend family by preventing families, so maybe it's just their logic circuits are broken.