They're getting WHO to Write Superman?

[WilliamMcGuire]

Sounds clever at first, but really isn't.

Think about this:
When a writer actually uses the platform that his fame as a creator affords him to spread incendiary hateful messages, that is where one has to take a stand.

All those who quietly have their beliefs don't make a difference one way or the other.

But this is what Scott Card does:



http://laist.com/2008/08/01/orson_sc...riter_will.php

The man has political opinions I disagree with, and pursues those political opinions freely, as is his right as an American. He's not doing anything criminal, so leave it alone.

What makes him different from Lovecraft; Wallace Stevens; Ezra Pound; Celine; Michel Houellebecq etc? I still read those men, and they had (and sometimes have) political views I find reprehensible. In fact, all of them were probably worse than OSC in purely philosophical terms.

Grown folks make their own decisions about the line of separation between art and artist. I don't need you to think for me.

[the4thpip]

The man has political opinions I disagree with, and pursues those political opinions freely, as is his right as an American. He's not doing anything criminal, so leave it alone.

What makes him different from Lovecraft; Wallace Stevens; Ezra Pound; Celine; Michel Houellebecq etc? I still read those men, and they had (and sometimes have) political views I find reprehensible. In fact, all of them were probably worse than OSC in purely philosophical terms.

Grown folks make their own decisions about the line of separation between art and artist. I don't need you to think for me.

The difference between him and Lovecraft, for example, is that Lovecraft is dead and can no longer use the money you spend on his works to campaign against civil rights. Or call for civil unrest in case civil liberties are extended to groups he finds icky.

[Eradicator]

One of the worsts posts I've ever seen on this forum, seriously.
From the bullshit that "most" of the country is against gay marriage (not true according to polls as it seems to be split 50/50.) To the of course usual assumption about "gay lifestyle and behaviour" because gays operate as a hive mind, whereas your not even a republican! How dare we make these assumptions about you.

If you bothered to read my post carefully at the beginning, I said, "if you actually polled ALL of New York...." - ALL being the keyword here, not crap polls skewed by the media, with only a selected sample, designed to alter the opinions of the viewing audience, which is exactly what is happening. And also, not everyone who supports gay marriage necessarily approves of homosexuality - I have seen people who think gays should have marriage rights but would be horrified if their own children were gay. So don't make assumptions regarding 50/50 polls.

I made the point of not being a right wing reactionary because a basic assumption amongst a lot of gay marriage supporters is that opposition to it is only something that comes from the far right. That is not true at all, and I know this for a fact. There are many people who hide their real opinions on this topic because of the constant name calling, and they keep quiet and accept things because they realize there is nothing they can do at this point to stop it. They go with the flow not because they are morally convinced, but as I said before, it's been shoved down their throat.

Then of course the usaul crying about how people are just so mean to you for calling you a bigot and were all just so self entitled. Gosh I wonder if another, small isolated group has ever felt that way about something? Say unfaily maligned and persecuted by people?

I'm not crying or whining at all, I'm stating a fact. There is no need to react with such hysteria against people for taking a legitimate, moral position. Being against homosexuality is not bigotry, and I'll stand by that now and forever. No amount of screaming from GLAAD and other circus parades will change that. I said it before, I'll say it again - gay is not the new black, never has been, never will be.

The inevitable doomsaying about how there lifestyle will destroy everything. Seems to have no notiecable effect on my home country of Canada but I can already guess the response, it just wont hasn't happenend yet amirite?

If you're going to rant, I suggest you check your grammar and spelling first.

Homosexuality by itself won't cause a societal breakdown in the immediate near future, and I never claimed anything like that. But you see, the human mind is very limited in its thinking, and modern man, especially, is consumed by his own hubris. As a species, we humans are under the delusion that we always know whats best for us, and history shows how wrong that view is.

The societal breakdown will happen gradually - hence why I said it won't happen in the immediate near future. It will happen in stages, and it might even take a century (perhaps even longer). However, I have no doubt that we are currently seeing the birth pangs of the collapse of Western Civilization, and the sad thing is, out of the ashes of that societal collapse, as humans try to rebuild from what's left, THEY STILL WON'T LEARN from history and that's because of people who think like you.

And for the record, I think Orson Scott Card was an asshat for supporting the war in Iraq. But despite that, I'll still defend the man - because this is a matter of principle against societal insanity.

[the4thpip]

If you bothered to read my post carefully at the beginning, I said, "if you actually polled ALL of New York...." - ALL being the keyword here, not crap polls skewed by the media, with only a selected sample, designed to alter the opinions of the viewing audience, which is exactly what is happening.

And here I thought the myth of skewed polls died when Obama was re-elected.

[the4thpip]

The funny thing is that the Eradicator mini series was written by an openly gay writer.

[WilliamMcGuire]

The difference between him and Lovecraft, for example, is that Lovecraft is dead and can no longer use the money you spend on his works to campaign against civil rights. Or call for civil unrest in case civil liberties are extended to groups he finds icky.

So what about Houellebecq?

[the4thpip]

So what about Houellebecq?

I would not support him, and next time DC lets him write a series of, say, Sugar & Spike I'll be first to gather the torches and pitchforks. Deal?

[Lexrules]

I just want to read Classic Superman ..

One's personal opinion is just that. I will not look down on anyone and their opinion even if I don't agree with it. In the end it's my own personal enjoyment I care about and my enjoyment is Superman. The only thing I want from the writer is that he or she get's him right.

[the4thpip]

I just want to read Classic Superman ..

One's personal opinion is just that. I will not look down on anyone and their opinion even if I don't agree with it. In the end it's my own personal enjoyment I care about and my enjoyment is Superman. The only thing I want from the writer is that he or she get's him right.

It's much more about the campaigning, and lobbying, and financing he does based on his opinion than the opinion itself.

[WilliamMcGuire]

I could I get that list of everyone's political opinions, though.

Because if I'm not going to buy Card, I don't want to buy anyone's comics who supports Obama. I just can't see my money going towards the drone bombing of children in Pakistan.

Thanks in advance.

[greatmetropolitan]

I just want to read Classic Superman ..

One's personal opinion is just that. I will not look down on anyone and there opinion even if I don't agree with it. In the end it's my own personal enjoyment I care about and my enjoyment is Superman. The only thing I want from the writer is that he or she get's him right.

Two things, Lexrules. One - I homophobia isn't an opinion, like, say "I like chocolate over vanilla", it's just wrong. Saying that someone isn't equal because of who they fall in love with is wrong. Just like thinking the sky is green isn't an opinion, it's just plain wrong. Just like homophobia.

And two, do you really believe that a man who wanted gay people persecuted, a man who wanted gay people imprisoned, a man who advocated the violent overthrow of the US government if he didnt get what he wanted, is someone who should be putting words into Superman's mouth? Do you think he'll get him right?

I really, really don't.

[the4thpip]

I could I get that list of everyone's political opinions, though.

Because if I'm not going to buy Card, I don't want to buy anyone's comics who supports Obama. I just can't see my money going towards the drone bombing of children in Pakistan.

Thanks in advance.

It's much more about the campaigning, and lobbying, and financing he does based on his opinion than the opinion itself.

[GokaiRed]

Being against homosexuality is not bigotry, and I'll stand by that now and forever. No amount of screaming from GLAAD and other circus parades will change that. I said it before, I'll say it again - gay is not the new black, never has been, never will be.

Can you explain exactly what you mean with that last statement. Because when I hear this phrase, it sounds like the user of it feels uncomfortable with being compared to a racist. Someone who dislikes a group of people based upon a part of who they are. But really, from the view of many people, those who believe it's okay to deny rights to a select group while granting it to everyone else have a very specific thing in common.

If you mean to suggest that gay people can't be compared to black people for what they have in common in the context of this issue, then why not? What is the specific thing that makes it okay to grant equal rights to black people, but only if they are heterosexual?

You seem very aware of the basic ins and outs of this argument about civil rights and why some gay people would feel mistreated in a similar fashion to how many other minorities were mistreated, so it's hard to understand what makes you think an intelligent society would allow that hypocrisy to go unchallenged forever.

That it took this long for it to become so prevalent is a shame. I imagine many people during the women's rights movement said the same at the time. It's called progress, you see.

[Eradicator]

Unfortunately, I think you're suffering a severe fear of change, as attitudes about homosexuality and its virtual harmlessness to society at large have begun to change. You deny this by telling yourself that everyone who disagreed with homosexuality thirty years ago must still all feel this way, but it's a few villainous entities trying to trick the rest of the world into thinking something is okay. That is obviously not the case.

I'm not suffering from a fear of change - change can be good or bad. But when society starts going bonkers, I speak out because I worry for future generations. Like I said, I don't care what gays do behind closed doors. Homosexuals have always been around and will always be around, but I still don't think their lifestyle and their love morally merits legitimization. The fact that we, as a society, have even accepted such unions as legitimate marriages already speaks volumes of where we are headed. This is about a clash of worldviews, simple as that.

What you're seeing is an acknowledgment that bigotry is not okay. A system that denies rights to some people while granting it to others is wrong, and as more people across the country (and world) come to update their standards and realize this basic truth, you see more visibility in media. That's not due to some grand, evil conspiracy. It's because the world is growing up. It's people who still cling to the old ways and lash out violently when asked to share their privileges that need to catch up to everyone else.

I don't see this as a matter of bigotry or civil rights; the fact that certain people are trying to make it into that is the problem. I do not believe being against homosexual marriage is bigotry; to me, its a moral issue and a matter of right and wrong. And quite frankly, our society, coupled with every other part of the world that it has infected with its popular culture, is losing its sense of right and wrong.

We may be advancing technologically, but we are not advancing morally. We are degenerating into selfish individualism and debauchery, and we sweep the real problems under the rug while thinking that advancing gay rights is some form of progress.

His "livelihood" is specifically targeting the personal lives of a minority group. As has been said countless times in this thread already, if it were only his opinion, then there would be little issue. It's the fact that he runs an organization whose primary purpose is to remove the rights of American citizens. In other words, he's messing with people's livelihood.

By this logic, he should change that, correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is part of a group that is against homosexuals adopting children, which is a legitimate position to take. He is not advocating that gays should lose their jobs or their livelihoods. Apples and oranges my friend.

But that being said, I think joining such organizations are futile on his part. Although I believe his position is correct, I don't think that he or his group can really do anything about it at this point. Let society run its course is what I say, and let people drown in their arrogance.

What rights is that organization trying to remove?

That is where this argument on gay marraige sticks in my craw. The right to marraige has never been denied. It simply isn't something that a gay person would avail themselves of as they have no interest in the opposite sex. The right however still exists.

Problem is, it doesn't carry the same weight to argue for a broadening of the definition of marraige to include homosexual couples. Which is what it is.

But some prefer to take the persecuted tactic and try and make it a civil rights issue, which is the part that gets under my skin. The tactic mind you, not the point that is being advocated. Just strikes me as being disingenuous.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Would you say the same thing if he advocated outlawing interracial marriage?

Yes I would, even though I find such a position to be stupid.

It is a hateful and cynical attitude to say that marriage is "the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

It should be the right to have society acknowledge the union you share with the love of your life.

As President Obama said in his inauguration speech last month: "if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

President Obama is a sell out pimp who was opposed to gay marriage before but ended up caving to the pressure.

[the4thpip]

. Being against homosexuality is not bigotry, and I'll stand by that now and forever. No amount of screaming from GLAAD and other circus parades will change that. I said it before, I'll say it again - gay is not the new black, never has been, never will be.

A man who knows more about being on the receiving end of anti-black bigotry than most people disagrees with you:

We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given.

- Desmond Tutu

I think I'm going to go with Tutu's opinion here. Seems more rooted in, you know, reality.