: Orson Scott Card: homophobe


(( p g ))
Feb 27th, 2004, 12:21 PM
This (http://www.nauvoo.com/library/hypocrites-osc.html) caught my eye today while scanning the today's Boing-Boing directory. (http://www.boingboing.net/) My heart just sank when I read this...

I respect all opinions (and ways of living) unless it's a point of view rooted in hate. :rolleyes:

used to be jwoodget
Feb 27th, 2004, 01:03 PM
That vitriol was written in 1990 but the Boing-Boing article has Card's latest trash at this link (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html).

It includes this gem: "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."

Is this idiot serious? He also has an article on Gibsons film. Amazing how hatred and love can co-exist in one person in apparent oblivion of each other.

(( p g ))
Feb 27th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Thanks for the correct link, U2bJW.
I'm really appalled at Card's evident ignorance and apparent fanaticism. I expect more from writers--especially of the sci-fi variety--so my respect for this guy's fiction has pretty much vanished.

MACSPECTRUM
Feb 27th, 2004, 05:47 PM
White House To Seek Ban On Gay Sex On The Moon
This is a pretty good extrapolation of the next probable announcement out of the Bush White House:
Worried by flagging poll numbers, a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and a sluggish economy, President Bush called on Congress today to approve a constitutional amendment that would ban gay sex on the Moon. Republican leaders hailed the move as a bold step to unite the country in a bold and forward-looking strategy to spread family values across the solar system, and protect the legacy of the Apollo missions.

is it me or is this just nuts?

Kardnal
Feb 27th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Man, you have no idea how much finding this out upsets me... Card was (is?) one of my favourite author's.... I think I've given at least 10 different people copies of Ender's Game as a gift at one point or another...

It's really saddening to have all of the respect and admiration I'd built up for him over the years wiped out because he can't look past his intolerant religious views... :(

Max
Feb 27th, 2004, 06:33 PM
I dunno. I still respect Card the writer. That Card, the private citizen, holds such malevolent views regarding homosexuality is no surprise to me; nor do I think it appropriate to hold writers, SF or otherwise, to standards of behaviour and judgement that excel my own.

It's unfortunate Card feels the way he does about gays and I do feel his fears are terribly misplaced and overblown, but the fellow is hardly alone in how he regards gays.

In fact, it's almost better that he states his views openly. Let his own readership give him what for.

CubaMark
Feb 27th, 2004, 11:33 PM
yikes. :(

Separating man from his craft is not always an easy thing to do... and of course, learning things like this makes one want to re-read the work for things you missed the first time around.

FWIW, I think one of his best novels was "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus". A fascinating premise, and nicely crafted.

...unless i read it again and find anti-gay subtexts.. :eek:

M

macello
Feb 28th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Card has accepted a rabid religious dogma.

He has no choice but to proselytize.

Such is the nature of the beast.

Certainly not the visionary and this may prove difficult for his next sci-fi convention.

MacNutt
Feb 28th, 2004, 01:19 AM
As tolerant Canadians, we should respect each others views. On any subject.

We should celebrate and encourage ALL persons to make their views and opinions known. On any subject. No exceptions.

Having said that, I should also note that THIS particular "western redneck" couldn't give a flyin f*ck WHO marries WHOM.

Black, white, red, yellow, male, female or any other combination. I just don't care.

Nor should it MATTER if I did or didn't care.

Because it's none of my business.

If you find love...true love...and want to make a commitment...then more power to you!

If anyone...celebrity or friend or family member...has a problem with your choice of mate...then that's THEIR problem.

Not yours.

used to be jwoodget
Feb 28th, 2004, 10:36 AM
We should be tolerant, yes, but there is a limit. Hence the whole definition of "hate-crimes". Much as I find the opinions of turkey's like Card repugnant, if these people hide their prejudices then the problem could become worse. The worst kind of bigotry is that which is hidden (say one thing, do another).

macello
Feb 28th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Excellent point, used to be jwoodget, but open bigotry also brought us WW2 and mass human extermination.

In a healthy. well educated and diverse society, bigotry dies of exposure.

In a sick and poorly informed society fearful of non-conformity, bigotry becomes law, as is proposed by the Bush administration.

Card's views are not merely intolerant of people's choices in matters of sexual preferences.

They are organized principles of outlining methods by which a society must coerce through civil action what it deems deviant behavior into "perfect obedience to laws". (Card's wording)

"Mein Kampf" is another such set of principles.

"This applies also to the polity (social order), the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society". (Card's wording)

What is "cannot be permitted to remain" ?

"Hitler ordered the registration of homosexuals and the Gestapo was charged with the responsibility of creating dossiers on homosexuals and other "asocials" in the Third Reich." http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html

used to be jwoodget
Feb 28th, 2004, 12:23 PM
Which is precisely why the principles of an open society must be upheld in Canada whenever challenged. Festering bigotry can only survive if hidden in the sewers. It can only prosper if society gives up its democratic principles. There's the conundrum. Democracy protects such disdainful voices because democracy depends on freedom of speech. But history proves it to be an effective way of soaking out the discriminatory views, albeit slowly.

It's a very difficult line to define what is acceptable to say (or paint or take pictures of) and what is not. Ultimately, we have to trust our democratic society to make the right distinctions and to use legal suppression only when absolutely necessary. It would be a mistake to define verbal homosexual bigotry as a hate crime as it promotes debate and ultimately provides the rope to hang such voices.

macello
Feb 28th, 2004, 06:28 PM
One can and must define verbal homosexual bigotry as a hate crime when the practise of equal rights for homosexuals is identified as a threat to society by the President (Bush) of the United States by a formal proclamation of his office:

"Marriage Protection Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation:
Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-12.htm

President Defends Sanctity of Marriage
Statement by the President:

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.[/I]"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031118-4.html

"In 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Measures for Protection and Recovery. These new laws defined homosexuals as "asocials" who were a threat to the Reich and the moral purity of Germany.
The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, held in 1945, did not address the plight of homosexuals with the same seriousness accorded other victims of the Holocaust. Burleigh and Wipperman (1991:183) suggest that this may reflect the fact that after the war homosexuality was still a crime under German law and there still existed widespread homophobia. In fact, the Reich laws against homosexuality (i.e., the Nazi interpretations of Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code) were not repealed in Germany until 1969. As a consequence, homosexual survivors of the camp experience were still reticent to press their case before the courts since they could still be prosecuted under existing laws.

However, the contemporary Gay Rights Movement, both in the United States and in Europe, has led to a re-opening of the plight of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The unparalleled treatment of homosexuals under the Nazi regime raises the same questions raised by the Holocaust itself: How could it happen? Can it happen again? And, how can its recurrence be prevented?"

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html

MBD
Feb 28th, 2004, 09:07 PM
What is odd is this is so poorly written! I thought Card's books were well written but this essay is terribly organized and full of errors in logic. It's too bad - I have an opinion of him now as not a very smart person - maybe his editor for his books was the real writer!

used to be jwoodget
Feb 29th, 2004, 11:10 AM
Perhaps the errors in logic are because he's arguing bigotted garbage about something we all understand and is real. His books are science fiction and its difficult to refute imagination.

Not that I'll ever break one open.

macello
Feb 29th, 2004, 12:59 PM
I don't believe that Card has a choice since he has accepted a faith that demands total obedience to the dictates of ideological dogma.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary - Definition: \Dog"ma\, n.; pl. E.
A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

This kind of faith certainly has much in common with the Taleban.

(( p g ))
Feb 29th, 2004, 08:41 PM
That does not excuse, exonerate or pardon Card. Everyone has choices in life. But his duties don't end with whatever faith he subscribes to. I expect all writers to adhere to some semblance fairness, balance and honesty when it comes to facts. I see none of that in what I have read in his hateful missives.