Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 185
  1. #61
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyraw View Post
    Yes, because by not reading the comic written be this man, you help spread joy and cuddles around the world so that everyone can eat cake and fairyfloss together.
    Also, every citizen of one country having the same rights is not a juvenile utopic fantasy.
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  2. #62
    BillionairePhilanthropist Mr. Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Wow this topic sure has generated a lot of hot air on this forum. Although I'm not sure what everyone is arguing about.
    OSC's views and actions are deplorable, I don't think anyone would deny that.
    However, l don't think DC has any obligation to fire him, DC is a private company and thus can hire whomever they please within the constraints of the law.
    At the same time, while I wouldn't sign the petition to have OSC fired, I don't oppose its existence, because in a free country people should be allowed to petition whatever they please, but petitions are not required to be acted upon, they are simply suggestions, and DC is free to choose to act on it or not.
    I also fully support individuals and retailers that have decided to boycott OSC's issue, that is their right and probably the best way to get their message across to DC.
    Personally I am not opposed to buying the book if it turns out to be good.
    However I doubt the ability of a writer with such a twisted world-view to produce a story worth reading. I will have to wait and see.
    Last edited by Mr. Wayne; 02-17-2013 at 12:47 AM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexrules View Post
    Must a slow news day. Why are we still making new threads about this ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
    I just find most of the CBR writers pretty incompetent and emotional. I think Newsarama and Comicvine's writers are much more objective and professional.

  4. #64
    Junior Member Camoron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Wayne View Post
    However I doubt the ability of a writer with such a twisted world-view to produce a story worth reading.
    Check out Ender's Game and I think your doubts will be removed. Some say he's a one-hit wonder, but if he is to only ever write one good book, what a good book to write.

  5. #65
    Hey, Larry! Darrell D.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyraw View Post
    I'm going to laugh so much if this story turns out to be absolutely amazing and everyone who jumped on this bandwagon either misses out or end up buying it anyway.
    Yeah, no, Card isn't that great of a writer.
    The chance of it being a fair to mediocre story is probably strong.

  6. #66
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    26

    Default

    my opinion is not going to be popular, however, I will say that it bothers me that people are comparing this issue to racism and bigotry. It's a totally separate issue. First marriage is a PRIVILAGE not a right. Just like driving. ANYONE can be denied a driver liscense as long as within the law. Most states have voted AGAINST gay marriage. Homosexuality it's self is a choice. A persons desires maybe inborn or developed but it's up to the individual to act out those desires. Card has never (to my knowledge) said he hates gay people. He has simple said he disagrees with their choices and feels that those choices should not be rewarded. If you think he's wrong so be it, but stop saying that he's a bigot and is spreading hate. You can like and even love someone and strongly disagree with their choices. I'm pretty sure none of us knows him personally, so we should stop judging him. In judging him as a person it makes us the very monsters we are making him out to be.

  7. #67
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    I have quoted this post before, but I think everyone who's defending OSC should read it so there's not misunderstanding about the actual reason this issue has come up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullets& Bracelets View Post
    I don't read Superman nor would I read "Adventures of Superman" regardless of the author. However I've been following the following the drama and I think some key facts need to be understood as to why the LGBT community is so adamantly against Orson Scott Card.

    There is a great deal of misinformation on Orson Scott Card's involvement with N.O.M. do to lack of knowledge by CBR members on how 501(k) non-profits work.

    1) Orson Scott Card is a Board Director on the National Association of Marriage. N.O.M. Is A Hate Group.


    In 2009, Orson Scott Card was installed as a Board of Director for N.O.M. A board of director for any 501(k) non-profit such as N.O.M. has direct control and influence of the major agenda of the organization. Where the money goes, what programs are run, and what research is produced is approved by Orson Scott Card. As with any 501(k) non profit, there is public records of his board voting record as per government law.

    Therefore, as a board director, he is directly responsible for any and all actions perpetuated by N.O.M.

    The National Organization of Marriage has painted itself as a institution that simply wants to "preserve marriage" in America. This could not be further from the truth.

    N.O.M. is virulently anti-gay hate group that not only seeks to enact anti-gay laws on both a federal and state level but also spread hateful misnformation about gay people. As with any 501(k) nonprofit, they are required to produce "research" to keep their 501(k) status. Over the years, they've spewed the following "facts" that are designed to stigmatize and discriminate against gay persons:

    - gay people are mentally diseased
    - gay people are pedophiles; they are 90% more likely to molest children.
    - gay parents harm children; they are more likely to molest and abuse their own children then straight parents.
    - gay people are gay because they were sexually abused as a child.
    - gay men controlled the Nazi Party and were directly responsible for the orchestration of the Holocaust
    - homosexuality is an active, conscious choice and all gay people can become straight with "reparative therapy"
    - gay people actively and intentionally try to infect heterosexuals and children with HIV.
    - gay people are practice bestiality, necrophilia, and illicit drug use.


    These "facts" were "researched" by N.O.M. and its affiliates. Any 501(k) non-profit that produces research and studies to be released to the general public must explicitly approved by the board of directors unanimously.

    This means that Orson Scott Card reviewed, segmented and approved these "research" studies for release to the general public on a yearly basis along with their financial reports Without his approval, these studies could not have been released.

    The Natonal Organization of Marriage is not just against marriage equality. They are virulently against any and all forms of gay rights in the country:

    - against the repeal of DADT; wants to ban and to criminalize homosexuals in the military.
    - against the decriminalization of the Texas sodomy laws that would make it illegal for gay people to have sex. Likened ruling to "legalizing pedophilia".
    - against hate crime laws that include gays
    - against employment discrimination laws that include gays
    - supports the federal nationwide sodomy laws that would effectively make any and all gay relations illegal and punishable with prison time.
    - supports the addition of homosexuality to the list of "mental disorders" governed by the American Association of Psychology.
    - supports legalizing the shutdown of gay establishments (i.e. bars, clubs, youth centers) dubbed the "Anita Bryant Law".
    - supports the ban of homosexuals in "child-sensitive" employment positions such as teachers, counselors, or lifeguards.
    - supports the repeal of laws that outlaw housing discrimination for gay persons; an integral component of early gay rights in the 1970s.
    - supports ending any and all government aid for those with HIV domestically.

    When Orson Scott Card was in-stated as a Board of Director, he pledged to uphold these 'values' and work to make these campaigns become a reality in the US. A board of director cannot 'half-ass' his devotion to a non-profit's cause. It's all or nothing as evidenced by a signed pledge and at-will contract upon his or hers in-statement.

    In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added the N.O.M. to it's list of hate groups alongside the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi Party and Westboro Church. They follow STRICT guidelines outlined by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation:

    an organization who's primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."

    This is a federal ruling that alongside the Department of Justice is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center with guidance, ordination and strict approval from the FBI.


    As such, N.O.M. remains on the FBI's list of potential enactors of domestic terrorism. on the basis of hate speech or incendiary language

    Based on these facts, as the Board of Director for National Organization of Marriage, Orson Scott Card is legally no different then the leader of the Westboro Church or a member of the KKK.

    Regardless, of your opinion on whether or not Orson Scott Card should write Superman, I hope this information is of to you when you make your decision to purchase his work in the future.
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  8. #68
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    That said, marriage absolutely is an universal human right and homosexuality is not a choice. Those are actual facts in this reality. Not opinions. Facts.
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  9. #69
    Elder Member thwhtGuardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    mansfield, MA
    Posts
    20,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vend-el View Post
    my opinion is not going to be popular, however, I will say that it bothers me that people are comparing this issue to racism and bigotry. It's a totally separate issue. First marriage is a PRIVILAGE not a right. Just like driving. ANYONE can be denied a driver liscense as long as within the law. Most states have voted AGAINST gay marriage. Homosexuality it's self is a choice. A persons desires maybe inborn or developed but it's up to the individual to act out those desires. Card has never (to my knowledge) said he hates gay people. He has simple said he disagrees with their choices and feels that those choices should not be rewarded. If you think he's wrong so be it, but stop saying that he's a bigot and is spreading hate. You can like and even love someone and strongly disagree with their choices. I'm pretty sure none of us knows him personally, so we should stop judging him. In judging him as a person it makes us the very monsters we are making him out to be.
    That's some pretty uneducated stuff right there.

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Lancerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meethraa View Post
    That said, marriage absolutely is an universal human right and homosexuality is not a choice. Those are actual facts in this reality. Not opinions. Facts.
    I support gay marriage. However, you should probably read what you use as a source. Because the wording of that clause stating marriage is a "universal human right" specifically say "men" and "women" and cites it as primarily being about the fundation of the family unit. Thats an argument alot of anti gay marriage advocates use. Keep in mind thats the U.N.'s interpretation of rights and the U.N. is just as fallible as any other man made institution. Hell, the country that this issue is taking place in has defied the U.N. on numerous occasions in the last decade.

    And also marriage is a man made institution that in reality just formalizes a commitment two people make to each other (and adds some legal benefits). It's not something as essential as food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. And honestly if it wasn't for the legal benefits and recognition nobody would really care that much about it other than for ceremonial sentimentalities.

  11. #71
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meethraa View Post
    That said, marriage absolutely is an universal human right and homosexuality is not a choice. Those are actual facts in this reality. Not opinions. Facts.
    According to the "universal human right" it say and men and women of full age. Nothing in there about about men and men or women and women. In addition this also up to each individual countries interpetation. For example what is exactly "full age"?

    How can you say homosexually is not a choice? A person has an option of wether they want to act on those desires or feelings. I personally know people that were homosexual and decided that they no longer wanted to act on those desires. Does that make the feeling go away? probably not, but they still decided not follow them. That means it's a choice.

    That being said, I will say that information about NOM is rather disturbing. A lot of it is rhetoric and sounds dangerous. So, I was 1000% wrong on that front. I'll take your word for because I have no desire to reseach it.

  12. #72
    Veteran Member Lancerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vend-el View Post
    According to the "universal human right" it say and men and women of full age. Nothing in there about about men and men or women and women. In addition this also up to each individual countries interpetation. For example what is exactly "full age"?

    How can you say homosexually is not a choice? A person has an option of wether they want to act on those desires or feelings. I personally know people that were homosexual and decided that they no longer wanted to act on those desires. Does that make the feeling go away? probably not, but they still decided not follow them. That means it's a choice.

    That being said, I will say that information about NOM is rather disturbing. A lot of it is rhetoric and sounds dangerous. So, I was 1000% wrong on that front. I'll take your word for because I have no desire to reseach it.
    The attraction itself is not a choice. You don't decide who you are attracted to. Action is always choice. But the choice for homosexuals to act on their attraction is no different than heterosexuals doing it. The only degree of difference is the amount of acceptance from mainstream society.

  13. #73
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lancerman View Post
    I support gay marriage. However, you should probably read what you use as a source. Because the wording of that clause stating marriage is a "universal human right" specifically say "men" and "women" and cites it as primarily being about the fundation of the family unit. Thats an argument alot of anti gay marriage advocates use. Keep in mind thats the U.N.'s interpretation of rights and the U.N. is just as fallible as any other man made institution. Hell, the country that this issue is taking place in has defied the U.N. on numerous occasions in the last decade.
    What else would it say? Chairs and chicken?
    Men and Women of age have the right to marry and form a family. It says nothing about having to exclusively do it with a member of the opposite sex. And forming a family is not the same as biologically reproducing, otherwise a lot of heterosexual marriages would be illegal as well.

    And also marriage is a man made institution that in reality just formalizes a commitment two people make to each other (and adds some legal benefits). It's not something as essential as food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. And honestly if it wasn't for the legal benefits and recognition nobody would really care that much about it other than for ceremonial sentimentalities.
    It's not essential when you're not the one being denied the same social and fiscal benefits as straight married couples (I can think of hospital visitation rights and tax deductions off the top of my head).
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  14. #74
    registered meethraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mostly here.
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vend-el View Post
    According to the "universal human right" it say and men and women of full age. Nothing in there about about men and men or women and women. In addition this also up to each individual countries interpetation. For example what is exactly "full age"?
    Of course it's up to each individual counties interpretation. It doesn't mean it's not a right, it means some countries are denying their citizens that right.

    How can you say homosexually is not a choice? A person has an option of wether they want to act on those desires or feelings. I personally know people that were homosexual and decided that they no longer wanted to act on those desires. Does that make the feeling go away? probably not, but they still decided not follow them. That means it's a choice.
    No, acting on your sexual impulses with another person is a choice (which no one should be forced to take against their will). Heterosexuals can choose to suppress their attraction to members of the opposite sex, while homosexuals can choose to suppress their attraction to members of the same sex.
    That doesn't mean that you chose which one you are, it just means that some people believe they have the right to force you to hide what you are. And that's not acceptable in a free society.
    P-Man "Does no one remember the NES? Flashing grey screens? Hmmm? Cartridges you had to blow so much that you expected there to be a fifty dollar bill on the nightstand in the morning?"

    Wannabe "It worked better if you slightly licked the game. I know it sounds odd, but it works really really well. At least on N64."

  15. #75
    Veteran Member Lancerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meethraa View Post
    What else would it say? Chairs and chicken?
    Men and Women of age have the right to marry and form a family. It says nothing about having to exclusively do it with a member of the opposite sex. And forming a family is not the same as biologically reproducing, otherwise a lot of heterosexual marriages would be illegal as well.


    It's not essential when you're not the one being denied the same social and fiscal benefits as straight married couples (I can think of hospital visitation rights and tax deductions off the top of my head).
    I would like you to first note that the article you linked to is worded very specifically. In almost every article that charter uses to denote rights to people they almost always use the term "everyone" when they mean all people. Almost exculsively in the article you are citing they said "men and women" for one right. Take that for what you will. They also state it in regards to a well known anti gay marriage argument (marriage being the foundation of the family unit). If they truly meant everyone they would have said everyone like in every other enumerated right. Keep in mind this is a UN declaration that was created in 1948 and most of the countries at that time (especially the most important ones in the U.N.) did not have legalized gay marriage. You used a crappy source to support your argument.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •