They're getting WHO to Write Superman?

[GokaiRed]

Agreed. He would not like it but he would allow him to speak his mind, Right or wrong.

I think the point is, if Superman was given a choice between a homophobic person who seeks to limit the rights of a minority, and someone who did not feel this way, Superman would choose the latter to write his book. When asked, he would state emphatically that he wished those kinds of attitudes would not be part of our society, and that he strongly disagreed with the action of opposing equal rights.

[Eradicator]

Sure but that first step is to look at your own self and get rid of the Prejudices you have in yourself. That is where real progress is made. Telling others to stop being Prejudice is only masking your own personal Prejudice. I have Prejudices, I always will, one needs to look into themselves to try to change that but like anything else in life it is tough to do so especially if you have lived in the certain way of think.

We are a people who are full of faults and we always will be. I wish that wasn't the case but we are all guilty of it.

This is probably one of the best posts I've read in a while.

[the4thpip]

Sarcastically arguing that everyone should boycott everything because people who disagree with you are everywhere- that doesn't disprove the point though.

But don't you see, DC produces his favorite comics, so we should never tell them when they're doing something distasteful or wrong.

[WilliamMcGuire]

That would actually not be comparable, unless the creator in question was part of some specific group that helps fund those disagreeable actions. But even that would not be comparable, because the president's function is larger than that of an organization that exists solely for disagreeable reasons and nothing more.

Even so, if you disagreed enough with the actions of a particular creator, then it is perfectly within your rights to speak about it, start a petition, and boycott their activities in whatever legal manner you see fit, and I support that.

Sarcastically arguing that everyone should boycott everything because people who disagree with you are everywhere- that doesn't disprove the point though.

If you donated 5 dollars to his re-election campaign, you supported it. When you vote for politician, you share the responsibility for his actions. You empowered him to make them. if Gail Simone or Ed Brubaker voted for Obama, they share in the ethical responsibility for his actions, period. This is essentially the same claim YOU ARE MAKING ABOUT ORSON SCOTT CARD.

Your argument, as a logical proposition:

1. OSC financially and intellectually supports the NOM.
2. The NOM is an unethical organization.
3. Buying an OSC comic financially supports OSC.
4. Supporting OSC is supporting NOM.
5. Supporting NOM is unethical.
Sic probe, it is unethical to buy an OSC comic.

There is nothing wrong with your chain of reasoning, as a piece of reasoning, but if one extends it logically, it makes supporting almost anything ethically tenuous.

I bought a Coca Cola today-- Did I support mercenaries? YES.

I bought a pair of Converses with Superman-- Did I support sweatshops? YES.

Same with Apple; Dell; Luxxottica; and so on and so forth.

Stuff your distinctions: In a capitalist society this IS ETHICAL REALITY. i'm asking you to be logically consistent to your own premises.

[the4thpip]

Telling others to stop being Prejudice is only masking your own personal Prejudice.

I'm sorry?
What gives you that idea? It's just downright odd.

Was Nelson Mandela just masking his own personal Prejudice? Was MLK? Harvey Milk? Gloria Steinem?

I am seriously curious what gives you the idea that nobody can criticize the prejudice in others out of an actual advanced moral state. History seems to prove you wrong.

[adam.walters]

I don't see how anyone could want to support this asshole. He goes beyond the usual bigot who wants gay marriage banned (gays don't deserve equal rights!) but he openly says homosexuality is wrong. By supporting him you support a bigot and one that will probably fund anti gay organisations.

Not supporting the guy, but hating a guy for having different beliefs is kind of like hating a guy for having different beliefs.

[the4thpip]

This is probably one of the best posts I've read in a while.

Well, it does not make a lick of sense, so I am not surprised you like it.

[B. Kuwanger]

Agreed. He would not like it but he would allow him to speak his mind, Right or wrong.

The problem to me is in doing. Like you said, a lot of us have our own personal hang ups and prejudices. But prejudice isn't what Card has, it's what he does.

[the4thpip]

Not supporting the guy, but hating a guy for having different beliefs is kind of like hating a guy for having different beliefs.

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

[Darrell D.]

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.

I will never read an HP Lovecraft book.
The man was an unapologetic racist.
And, hand-waving it away with 'He was a product of his times' gets no traction with me. NONE.

[finfangfool]

Once again, nobody's saying someone can't have an unpopular opinion (or even a horrible popular opinion). We're saying that Mr. Card is well-known and can use his voice and reach to do many things, and what he has chosen to do with this power and reach is call for the treatment of an entire group of people as inferior to the rest of us. Going so far as to join an organization that has as its main goal the suppression of the rights of that group of people. Given this, if you disagree with him we're saying you should not only withhold support from him (financial or otherwise) but you should speak up so the people in charge will know that you feel this isn't right.

As for the polling of popular opinion (whether it's a sample of a population, or the entire population), if we polled before freeing the slaves or extending rights to women or minorities we'd live in a society not far off from the 19th century. Also, if you took that poll 30 years ago it'd be a heck of a lot more lopsided in favor of straight-only marriage than it is now. And if you take it 30 years from now the biggest response is going to be "Are you serious? Do people really care about what two consenting adults who love each other choose to do in the privacy of their homes?" (well, some version of that). It's called progress. We don't stone adulterers or those who eat shellfish anymore because some bronze age text says we should. That's why I don't mind the birthers and the gun nuts and the marriage "defenders" as much as other lefties like myself. I know they're going nuts because they know they're losing. Slowly but surely. In the meantime, I'm still not going to financially support a known bigot or the company that chooses to associate themselves with him. If you agree with me, or just care about who gets to experience the privelege of telling the story of the greatest Superhero of them all, you shouldn't either.

[GokaiRed]

I didn't say their lives are less legitimate - I said that I don't think their unions are legitimate marriages, because my view of marriage is informed by a religious worldview.

Forgive me, but who on Earth would think of marriage as not being a part of someone's life if they are actively seeking it? Which they clearly are, since that's the basis on which nearly this entire discussion stands. Your use of semantics here is really unfortunate. You've already spoken at length on how you feel about gay people and the goings-on of their personal lives.

I'm glad you mentioned that only some of the Founding Fathers actually believed the things you've spoken about. I'm also glad you previously mentioned that change can sometimes be good. Can you see where I'm going with this?

I'm sure you're aware that some of the men responsible for building up our current society were atheists and agnostics- not really religious at all. It stands to reason that, if they considered the possibility of marriage equality at all, they would not disagree with it on the basis that you are, assuming that any of them would disagree at all. And, if the concept never occurred to them, it's likely because few people thought of gays as equals at the time. Just as few people thought of blacks as equals at the time. That whole racism/homophobia correlation kicks in around there as well.

See, this is the problem with invoking Founding Fathers in the same conversation as the concept of the possibility of changing things for the better. It seems fairly believable that some of the Founding Fathers genuinely did believe in the passage of time revealing a new, better way of life than the ones they currently lived. Over the years, society has benefited from a long, hard look at its own practices and improved itself based upon that.

Knowing all of this, I find it difficult to imagine that it would never enter into someone's mind that maybe the whole "man/woman marriage only" thing is another one of those topics that is a lot sillier than it seemed back in the good ole days.

I'm sorry that you don't want to get into religion, but since you brought up your own beliefs, if I'm going to continue, I feel obligated to point something out. I'm sure you already know that many beliefs predate your own, and the concept of marriage existed before yours were brought into existence. As was the concept of homosexuality and its place within the many civilizations of the Earth. Your personal views are kind of irrelevant when it comes to legal rights for everyone.

And if it's true what you say about being fine with gay people having equal legal privileges, then I have to wonder what the problem is. You don't seriously believe that the word "marriage" is the only thing that must be protected. Because I'm pretty sure the average gay person doesn't actually give a damn what you want to call it. They're more concerned with being able to see their spouse on their deathbed instead of being told they can't because they're not family, and then being able to attend their funeral without a restraining order from their unsupportive parents, and then being able to keep some of their belongings without the state deciding to seize it all and give it to people that potentially didn't even like them. Remember that stuff I mentioned about semantics? Come on now...

[Eradicator]

Well, it does not make a lick of sense, so I am not surprised you like it.

It actually makes tons of sense if you had eyes to see and ears to hear, but I'm not surprised that it didn't make sense to you.

All those people you listed: Steinem, MLK, Milk, Mandela, etc - did any of those people criticize themselves to the degree that they fought against prejudice? Despite the positive effects they may or may not have created in their respective societies, they did not address the core problems facing the human condition.

MLK is a good example - he was somewhat of a moral hypocrite, if you actually read into his life. Now, that does not mean he wasn't a good man, but despite his heroic efforts and the good things he helped to bring about, this country still has a race problem (even if we have a black President - look at how the Republicans have treated him). You can legislate laws through state power to coerce people into thinking differently, but that doesn't mean people will automatically being to think differently. That must come from within.

What America has done is sweep a lot of problems under the rug thinking that they have been solved, when they really haven't, and increasingly, we're going to see the after effects of that.

[GokaiRed]

Stuff your distinctions: In a capitalist society this IS ETHICAL REALITY. i'm asking you to be logically consistent to your own premises.

While ignoring, like, 90% of what others are telling you. Many people have specifically laid out the differences in the analogies you posted, and you continue to fall back on the idea that everyone supports something disagreeable.

Well, no kidding. I just told you that myself, so I don't need you to repeat part of my own assertion. That was never the point. Your continued failure to find it just makes your pleas for consistency hollow.

[Aquacatlungfish]

Sure but that first step is to look at your own self and get rid of the Prejudices you have in yourself. That is where real progress is made. Telling others to stop being Prejudice is only masking your own personal Prejudice. I have Prejudices, I always will, one needs to look into themselves to try to change that but like anything else in life it is tough to do so especially if you have lived in the certain way of think.

We are a people who are full of faults and we always will be. I wish that wasn't the case but we are all guilty of it.

My faults are that I'm a lazy bastard who forgets things and hasn't done much with my life and should stop reading so much comic books. Card's faults are that he hates people for their sexual orientation, doesn't want to give that all people equal rights and is a fucking idiot and a bigot and campaigns for his stupid moronic views to become laws which will harm people who have done NOTHING to him for a dumbass philosophy.

You're right, we need to come together and solve our own problems, as they matter more.

Card has had YEARS to solve his own problems and hasn't done it and worse, he's taken those problems to the next level and campaign for his homophobia to become law. That's a problem, bigger than some boring asshole making a racist joke.