That was my point. That someone with bizarre views is not shunned from work ( first amendment). We have the power to not buy and voice opinion.
And in Canada, Mexico, Brazil; South Africa; most of Europe ...Whether you like it or not his view is middle road for people who live outside the liberal world that exist mostly in the east and west coast of the US.
Just for the record Orson Scott CArd HAS advocated jailing homosexuals.
So not all homosexuals, just enough of them to make an example.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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...son-Scott-CardHow long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
I didnt know he said all that. That is beyond crank talk.
Now Im shocked there isnt more outrage.
"Heads up-- If Havok's position in UA #5 really upset you, it's time to drown yourself hobo piss. Seriously, do it. It's the only solution." - Rick Remender
Sucks 200 character limit.
People in this discussion should take a second and think about the difference between having and stating an unpopular opinion (or even a horrible popular one), and actually physically and financially going out of your way to suppress the rights of others you see as inferior. If all he did was say in interviews, "I think gay marriage is wrong" or even "I think homosexuality is disgusting and I want no part of it in any society I live in" I'd say fine, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to be buying your products based on our difference of opinion but I also won't be calling for you to be fired or blacklisted. If you join a group that's actively working to suppress the rights of individuals you see as inferior however, using your clout and platform to do it (clout and platform provided by people buying your products) then I'm not only not going to contribute to that I'm going to stand up and call on others to withhold support.
Is there anyone in this thread who doesn't see the distinction? I brought it up 3 times in the Superman forum thread on this subject, and nobody on the opposition responded. I don't know if it's because they didn't have a satisfactory answer or the thread page count kept ticking up due to the outrage, but I'd like a rational answer.
A Fool for the Foom