posted
I started a petition for fans to show support for Uncle Orson and his gig with DC Comics. A gay website has started their own petition to get him fired and has already gained over 6,000 signatures. We need to catch up! Click the link below to sign the petition and spread the word!
posted
I don't think most people here are Anti-Gay, so not sure how many even though they may like OSC's writing, actually support his horrible stance on Civil Rights.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Victor isn't asking for a petition to support Card's stand on anything.
I think he's just asking for a petition of people who think it's alright if Card writes a Superman comic.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be willing to bet Victor supports his stance, just by reading his articles. Card is welcome to his ignorant beliefs, but I'm sure he already knows the consequences of voicing them. I won't be signing the petition, but I don't care that there is one on either side. It's ironic that Victor blasts the "Gay Activists" for the petition, so to 'fix' this - an anti-fire Petition is started.
I'm all for there being consequences for people actively trying to suppress civil rights.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really a balancing act. I mean, I like Card's writing, but I don't like where my money goes when I buy things he's done. Same thing with Chik-Fil-A, I don't mind their MSG Laden chicken, but I dislike them as a company.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think he is as good a writer as he use to be and too much of his lecturing leaks into his books, so... And his hatred of gays is so vitriolic and acidic. So,I am sorry, I will not support him. Or NOM. If you really want to protect children, wouldn't you do something about child abuse? About domestic abuse? Gays getting married isn't nearly a big a deal as those things. So many of these organizations that support NOM turn a blind eye to child abuse. Some even BLATANTLY condone beating kids into submission and women being submissive. That's way worse on a family that two men or two women holding hands all happy.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic church for example. And the Mormon church does too. This is generalizing a lot, but it seems like these traditional organizations are more tolerant when it comes to molestation than gay people. It makes no sense. On an individual basis it gets swept under the rug. How can they claim to care about family values, but their actions will hurt gay families and they do nothing useful to help heterosexual parented families. There's not just abuse but also economic things that make life hard for a family. If they cared about true family values, wouldn't they, instead of spending money to keep gays not only from getting married but getting ANY kind of marriage benefits, spend money to help struggling families? Anyway, even strict conservative Mormons, Catholics, Baptists and the like are choosing accepting their gay children and loving them for what they are over hate for them. It's a slow change, but soon, this sort of thing will be a thing of the past. And folks like NOM will be depressingly behind.
Plus Focus on the Family blatantly tells parents to beat children into submission.How does that help create a healthy family dynamic?
posted
Wow. Thesifer, So, there should be consequences to voicing beliefs some think are ignorant. But you're all for Civil Rights. Well as long as you get to decide what's ignorant and what's not, you'll be ok.
And Synesthesia, I have never, EVER, heard RC clergy preach hatred of ANYONE. If anything, they strive to promote ever more tolerance as activists spew ever more hatred and do everything they can to provoke hateful responses. In fact it seems you all feed on hate, and if you can't provoke a hateful response, you'll manufacture one. Perhaps the clergy know you're MO too well.
And as for financial support of families in need, are you oblivious to the tremendous work of the LDS and RC churches in this area, or just willfully ignorant?
It seems some simply cannot tolerate viewpoints other than their own. That my friends is depressingly behind. That is pretty much medieval.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's not just abuse but also economic things that make life hard for a family. If they cared about true family values, wouldn't they, instead of spending money to keep gays not only from getting married but getting ANY kind of marriage benefits, spend money to help struggling families?
The LDS church's welfare program has been pointed out to you again and again, even as recently as yesterday.
Your objections along this specific line are ignorant, Synesthesia.
quote:The Catholic church for example. And the Mormon church does too. This is generalizing a lot, but it seems like these traditional organizations are more tolerant when it comes to molestation than gay people.
This is a serious charge.
The Mormon church has taken steps in recent years to make sure that sex offenders have no callings that bring them into contact with children. The process is Church wide, and international. While there are holes and mistakes in it, it is one example of the Church doing the opposite of "turning a blind eye to molestation."
Congregational leaders are given training on how to recognize child abuse; there is a 24x7 help line for ecclesiastical leaders to call to quickly access the Church's significant resources in preventing and dealing with abuse.
There are gaps; there are mistakes. But your charge of Mormons turning a blind eye to child predation is at best, uninformed. As a scout leader in the Church, and now in the youth ministry, a HUGE amount of attention is given to the subject on an institutional and organizational level.
You are wrong. Now you know.
quote:It makes no sense. On an individual basis it gets swept under the rug. How can they claim to care about family values, but their actions will hurt gay families and they do nothing useful to help heterosexual parented families.
The Mormon reaction to homosexuality makes complete sense within the context of the doctrine. The doctrine has been explained to you several times on this site-- I'm reluctant to explain it again, seeing as how past iterations have apparently been ignored.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, OSC is a huge bigot and he says stupid stuff regularly with regards to gay issues.
Does that mean I can't read him? Like, am I supposed to send my booklist to GLAAD before I can start reading? And does that mean I can't listen to Wagner anymore either?
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
You're aware how a voluntary boycott works, right? If it's important enough to you to not send him money, then don't read his stuff. If it isn't, don't worry about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying really, really hard to stay out of this debate.
This is as far as I'll go:
Just because a group's efforts in one area aren't well publicized, don't mean that a group isn't actually making any efforts in that area.
It certainly does not mean that the group actively favors that.
For example, I cannot think of any information I have ever read or been exposed to that discusses a gay organization that actively works to help sex abuse victims.
However, it occurs to me that this is most likely due to my never having sought out any information on the matter, and the relative lack of controversy in the topic--and lack of controversy generally means little media play. I'd be amiss to extrapolate my lack of personal exposure to such an organization as an argument that such a thing did not exist. I'd be inventing reality out of whole cloth to say that it meant that gays were in favor of sex abuse.
I can certainly understand, given the way the internet and media get so much mileage out of every place they can find where the mormon church and gay issues have come into conflict, how one could assume that homosexuality is more important to mormons than other things.
However, it would be grossly inaccurate.
Obviously, as a Christian organization, the mormon church preaches forgiveness of all, but as a human organization it often falls far short. The number of instances of mormon individuals failing to show compassion towards homosexuals makes headlines--I can assure you, the actual number of mormons who would have difficulty showing compassion to one who was guilty of sexual abuse would be far, far greater.
Let me put it this way. When I was in college at BYU, over a decade ago, when the internet was still a little baby internet and gay marriage didn't even seem to be a blip on the horizon, a dear friend of my wife and I was a byu student who everyone knew was gay. He got flack for it sometimes, but, in his words, not as often as you'd think.
In contrast, in the stake I grew up in, people who had even had sexual affairs of a non abusive nature were constantly treated with "kid gloves." I'm referring specifically here to people who were in a married, committed relationship who strayed, not people who'd had relationships where neither party was married.
So I would say, in my experience, Mormons tend to see infidelity as a greater problem than homosexuality.
Sexual abuse would be even further up the scale. To a mormon, the greatest sin of all is murder, and sexual abuse falls closer to murder than it does to consensual sexual sin.
To a mormon, part of how repentence works is you make "resitution" for the thing you did wrong. The sins that are particularly grievous are the ones for which restitution is not possible. Where there's not a way to give back the thing you stole or publicly correct the falsehood you told about someone.
Murder fits this category, for obvious reasons, but so does sexual abuse. Both take away something that it is not in he sinner's power to give back. To us, that's as bad as it gets.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
When I said "kid gloves" above, this is what I was trying to convey:
Fellow members behave awkwardly around them, like they know they shouldn't treat them differently, but end up treating them differently as they are constantly thinking about how they should be treating them.
"Walking on eggshells" might have been a better cliche than "kid gloves" for what I was going for.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: See, but I am not sure if I want to support him in this. Because he'll give money to NOM. UGH. That group is very stupid.
Doesn't he also give money to pay for this forum, though? The one you all post on constantly?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
And one could just treat gay people like people because that is what they are. It's not like when the chance of your relatives being black was slim. Your brother or sister could be gay, your parents, friends, all kinds of people. Why reject family and friends based on something as arbitrary as being gay?
You can read what you want, but it's so tricky because who the heck wants him giving more ca$h to NOM? they shouldn't get ca$h based on the fact that they are ridiculous alone.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It's really a balancing act. I mean, I like Card's writing, but I don't like where my money goes when I buy things he's done. Same thing with Chik-Fil-A, I don't mind their MSG Laden chicken, but I dislike them as a company.
Boycotting Chik-Fil-A was easy. Don't like their crappy waffle fries anyway.
Both of the new series (mithermages and pathfinder) totally have me hooked, though. I have to find out how those turn out before I can boycott him. And the Ender series. And if he gets around to finishing Alvin Maker one day.
Tell you what, after he's done writing and retired, then I'll boycott him.
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia -- just wondering how you know if Card sends his money to NOM? And how do you know how he treats his gay friends, or how many of his friends or relatives are gay?
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's on the board of directions of NOM. He has talked about his gay friends in his articles, but I'm just not sure I'd be his semi-gay friend with his attitude about gayness. There's worse things in the world than two people of the same sex being together, you know.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I'm all for there being consequences for people actively trying to suppress civil rights.
You're trying to reduce the width of the Overton window of acceptable political beliefs, by seeking to impose financial penalties on those who vocally disagree with you, making them unemployable; even if such disagreement is peaceful.
This is pretty much the same as if OSC had asked for people to boycott and fire everyone who (even peacefully) advocates same-sex marriage.
That you so move against someone whose beliefs against same-sex marriage are held by about 45% (or so) of the American population is scary, since you would effectively seek to condemn 45% of the American people to unemployment for holding political beliefs you consider incorrect. Or you would alternatively seek to make 45% of the public too scared to speak their true minds, instead of actually changing said opinions.
And I'm saying all the above as someone who *hugely* supports same-sex marriage.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are people who push to fire people just for being gay... Like those Million Mom people who got their drawers in a knot over Ellen being a spokeperson for JC Penny. I'm not saying its' right to use those tactics, but I'm not sure it's right to deny people rights just because you don't like them being gay either.
Catch 22
Also a book I must read one day.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It's really a balancing act. I mean, I like Card's writing, but I don't like where my money goes when I buy things he's done. Same thing with Chik-Fil-A, I don't mind their MSG Laden chicken, but I dislike them as a company.
Whether or not someone falls for the ridiculous, completely discredited anti-MSG hysteria is one of those handy indicators as to how critically minded and rational that person is. It's like anti-vaccination hysteria in that way... though I'll admit it's a lot less contemptible since it doesn't actually result in any deaths.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I'm all for there being consequences for people actively trying to suppress civil rights.
You're trying to reduce the width of the Overton window of acceptable political beliefs, by seeking to impose financial penalties on those who vocally disagree with you, making them unemployable; even if such disagreement is peaceful.
This is pretty much the same as if OSC had asked for people to boycott and fire everyone who (even peacefully) advocates same-sex marriage.
That you so move against someone whose beliefs against same-sex marriage are held by about 45% (or so) of the American population is scary, since you would effectively seek to condemn 45% of the American people to unemployment for holding political beliefs you consider incorrect. Or you would alternatively seek to make 45% of the public too scared to speak their true minds, instead of actually changing said opinions.
And I'm saying all the above as someone who *hugely* supports same-sex marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: ...you would effectively seek to condemn 45% of the American people to unemployment for holding political beliefs you consider incorrect.
The problem with this train of thought is that it is not as simple a matter as a "political belief", while civil rights do fall within the arena of politics, we are talking about the active persecution of an entire class of people who want nothing more then to have their version of love to be given the same legal rights as other's.
Were this an issue of a balanced budget, I would agree, but it is not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with this train of thought is that it is not as simple a matter as a "political belief", while civil rights do fall within the arena of politics, we are talking about the active persecution of an entire class of people who want nothing more then to have their version of love to be given the same legal rights as other's.
First of all, I don't think you're meaningfully using the word "active". If you are calling denial of marriage rights "active persecution", what did you call it when the army actively fired gay people, or if if there were calls to boycott and fire people who supported gay marriage? I think that denial of marriage rights is systematic (passive) oppression, and hetero privilege, but it can't be classified "active persecution".
Secondly, that you find this particular political belief super-important doesn't change it from being just a political belief. On my part I think that anyone who supports the "War On Drugs" contributes to far greater misery than people who oppose same-sex marriage; it's the "war on drugs" who *actively* persecutes people and systematically places them in hellholes for no greater crime than wanting to inject chemicals IN THEIR OWN BODIES.
That's *my* political belief, and if I could snap my fingers and end the "war on drugs", I'd find that a thousand times a higher priority than recognizing same-sex marriage.
Should I then call for a petition to fire people from their jobs if they politically disagree with me in regards to drug legalization? As I find this particular political position so very important, and the current status quo on the issue so damaging to people's lifes?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there are people who push to fire people just for being gay... Like those Million Mom people who got their drawers in a knot over Ellen being a spokeperson for JC Penny.
Now, *that's* active persecution, and I find it similar to what is being attempted by some against OSC now.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That a gay life partner can not visit their dying significant other in the hospital is right up there.
But what I was talking about is the last decade of active persecution. Thankfully a lot of that has been dropped by the wayside very recently, but that does not mean that gays do not have to deal with significant discrimination and hardship even today.
Oh, and for the record I agree with you 100% about the war on drugs.
I personally think that using the legal system to enforce the belief that allowing gays to marry whom the see fit causes real harm to society in general is not a political belief, it is bigoted and immoral act which is given a veneer of social acceptability by being classed as mere politics. As if believing that interracial marriage should have continued to be illegal in the '50s because it was "bad for society" was not racist, just political. As if if blaming the Jews in '30s Germany for the financial woes of the county was "merely politics".
It's crap. It's just an excuse to make persecution of a minority group seem acceptable. We aren't evil, we just disagree...politically.
Well, eff that. I for one will not stand for such an excuse to shield the bigoted and close minded that insist that their preference is morality, that their personal convictions should be enforced upon all with a closed fist. You may not love whom you love because I say it is wrong for you to do so. You can not have your love be recognized as legitimate in my society because I think it is wrong. You must be an outsider because I know better then you.
That is not politics, that is bigotry.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I personally think that using the legal system to enforce the belief that allowing gays to marry whom the see fit causes real harm to society in general is not a political belief, it is bigoted and immoral act which is given a veneer of social acceptability by being classed as mere politics."
I keep not understanding what you mean by "mere" politics. Political ideas are the MOST important kind of ideas there are; they're the sort of ideas that affect the society, the 'polis'.
quote:As if believing that interracial marriage should have continued to be illegal in the '50s because it was "bad for society" was not racist, just political.
It was obviously both racist and political. I really don't think you understand what the word "political" means. Any position about what the law of the state or what the government should or shouldn't be doing, is a political position, regardless of whether this position is based on egalitarian or bigoted principles, on religious or secular ones.
A political position doesn't have to be one you like for it to be a political position, nor does it have to be reasoned in a way you like. It just has to relate to governance.
quote:That is not politics, that is bigotry.
What kind of world do you live in where politics and bigotry don't intersect? It's politics *and* its bigotry. Being pro-apartheid, or being pro-segregation, or being pro-nazi or even being pro-slavery, OR EVEN BEING PRO-GENOCIDE, these are all political positions.
Are you defining only political beliefs personally acceptable to you as "politics" while bigoted or hateful political beliefs somehow fail to qualify as "politics"?
If someone argues that women should be denied the right to vote, or that slavery should be legal again, those are also political positions.
quote:We aren't evil, we just disagree...politically.
Why can't you do both? The only reason I can think of seems to be that you're trying to bring into harmony two contradictory things - one, the idea that in free societies opposing political views ought be allowed, second, the fact that you really REALLY don't want *these* particular opposing political views to be allowed.
So the only way to combine the two ideas is to somehow label this particular political position against gay marriage "not political", instead of simply admitting that there are political beliefs you think should not be allowed.
On my part I would openly say that I think political beliefs advocating genocide or terrorism should not be allowed, so I'd be fine with banning advocacy of nazism or advocacy of islamist jihad.
But being simply anti-same sex marriage falls significantly beneath that standard of mine.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, you make a fair point. I was coming from the angle that by labeling this a "political" issue it removed the moral consequences, but I can agree with what you are saying that a political view can also be bigoted, evil and oppressive.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about if people believe what they want but I'm not going to stay silent if them pushing their beliefs leads to millions of people being completely miserable if they get their way? Free speech is a two way street
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I'm all for there being consequences for people actively trying to suppress civil rights.
You're trying to reduce the width of the Overton window of acceptable political beliefs, by seeking to impose financial penalties on those who vocally disagree with you, making them unemployable; even if such disagreement is peaceful.
This is pretty much the same as if OSC had asked for people to boycott and fire everyone who (even peacefully) advocates same-sex marriage.
That you so move against someone whose beliefs against same-sex marriage are held by about 45% (or so) of the American population is scary, since you would effectively seek to condemn 45% of the American people to unemployment for holding political beliefs you consider incorrect. Or you would alternatively seek to make 45% of the public too scared to speak their true minds, instead of actually changing said opinions.
And I'm saying all the above as someone who *hugely* supports same-sex marriage.
Best post on the thread. Feeling the need to slow-clap.
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mind you, Kelly, I have since been informed on a different thread that NOM itself has supported similar boycotts, notably and recently against Starbucks.
That changes significantly the ethics of similar boycotting against members in NOM's board of directors (which includes Orson Scott Card). ONLY against them, not against everyone that opposes same-sex marriage.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand why someone who is gay or has gay loved ones would be especially sensitive to OSC's position on these issues, but let's not overstate things. Believing that traditional marriage should be sustained and protected and not redefined is not necessarily hate-motivated or bigotry.
Pro-abortion rights folks are not anti-children or ageists.
Pro-affirmative-action folks are not anti-white or racists.
Feminists are not anti-male or sexists.
Environmentalists are not anti-human or speciesists.
Pro welfare folks are not anti-rich or incomeists.
Yes, some of each of these groups are indeed bigoted, short-sighted, and weird, but they do not necessarily define the movement (except when it it convenient for opponents). The whole silly "hater" culture that we have these days is ridiculous and often disingenuous. It gets in the way of real discussion and progress. Very little of what is labeled as hate has anything to do with hate--that may be overstating it a bit, but...
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he wants to stand for religious laws baning gay or homosexual marrige (in the realm of that religion) Then I will support him (even though I disagree)
If he wants to persue American law to ban "same sex" marriage then I must stand adamantly agaist. A hermaphrodite or asexual shouldn't be made to suffer by never being allowed to marry another hemaphrodite or asexual simply because they are the "same sex" they are not commiting any sin nor are they homosexual or against any religious sanctity of marriage. Jesus loved the "freaks" of his time and taught not to judge or discriminate (the lepers at the foot of the temple mount)
Posts: 25 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
