
Regarding whether or not Orson Scott Card hates homosexuals or not, I encourage you to read (in full) some of his own words on the subject.
Thanks for the link, adam.
When I was an undergraduate theatre student, I was aware, and not happily so, how pervasive was the reach of the underculture of homosexuality among my friends and acquaintances
If anyone here has ever read Wagner's Judaism in Music, one might immediately note the stunning parallels.
(I realized, just now, that this may have been construed as a godwin. It was not intended as such.)
SpacePPoliceman wrote:Oso wrote:When it comes to art (and I include games in that category) we have more to risk by enforcing group-think than we do from allowing artists to explore their ideas.
Who is enforcing anything? OSC remains free to spout whatever enters his brain, and no one claimed he shouldn't be. Isn't it my free-speech to be able to say "I don't need to hear this bullshit"?
The group think comes when the decision not to buy becomes an organized boycott. I understand the personal choice not to purchase, but the conversation has also touched on the concept of boycotting and sending a message to the developer/distributor/publisher.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that those who are disgusted by OSC are somehow wrong not to buy his stuff. I did mean to say that in my internal debate over how to deal w/ his ugly side, I choose art and expression over enforcing what I believe to be justice. There is risk both direction.
I also see no problem with a group of people saying "We don't need to hear this bullshit, and we want to make others aware that this bullshit is here." OSC is free to say whatever, and people as a group are free to say he's not getting their money. We not only have freedom of speech, but we have freedom of assembly too, and as long as that assembly doesn't become a fascist mob demanding regulation, that seems fine. When faced with someone who finds something offensive, I always say they're under no obligation to watch/buy whatever it is--it seems correct to say it and mean it.
If there were a call to pull things off XBLA, or ensure OSC never speaks in public again, it'd be a different issue.
I think he's backwards and wrong but I don't think he should be punished for being backwards and wrong.
Instead people who don't want to support him should be punished by being made to, if they don't want to?
This "we hate the lifestyle, not the person" logic is, incidentally, the LDS Party Line.
Oso wrote:SpacePPoliceman wrote:Oso wrote:When it comes to art (and I include games in that category) we have more to risk by enforcing group-think than we do from allowing artists to explore their ideas.
Who is enforcing anything? OSC remains free to spout whatever enters his brain, and no one claimed he shouldn't be. Isn't it my free-speech to be able to say "I don't need to hear this bullshit"?
The group think comes when the decision not to buy becomes an organized boycott. I understand the personal choice not to purchase, but the conversation has also touched on the concept of boycotting and sending a message to the developer/distributor/publisher.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that those who are disgusted by OSC are somehow wrong not to buy his stuff. I did mean to say that in my internal debate over how to deal w/ his ugly side, I choose art and expression over enforcing what I believe to be justice. There is risk both direction.
I also see no problem with a group of people saying "We don't need to hear this bullshit, and we want to make others aware that this bullshit is here." OSC is free to say whatever, and people as a group are free to say he's not getting their money. We not only have freedom of speech, but we have freedom of assembly too, and as long as that assembly doesn't become a fascist mob demanding regulation, that seems fine. When faced with someone who finds something offensive, I always say they're under no obligation to watch/buy whatever it is--it seems correct to say it and mean it.
If there were a call to pull things off XBLA, or ensure OSC never speaks in public again, it'd be a different issue.
But that isn't what a boycott is. A boycott is "We don't like X, so we're going to punish you until you change X to meet our demands". When Disney gave benefits to gay couples and those christians boycotted Disney, they were trying to punish Disney so they would change their policy. I refuse to play the GTA games or any games that make being a murdering criminal cool, that is way different than trying to boycott Take2 until they meet my demands.
But that isn't what a boycott is. A boycott is "We don't like X, so we're going to punish you until you change X to meet our demands". When Disney gave benefits to gay couples and those christians boycotted Disney, they were trying to punish Disney so they would change their policy. I refuse to play the GTA games or any games that make being a murdering criminal cool, that is way different than trying to boycott Take2 until they meet my demands.
Show me the demands. I haven't seen any. I can't get behind the logic that "This game sucks, I won't buy it" is valid, but "This game is made by a dick, I won't buy it" isn't.
Kier wrote:What if the grand wizard of the KKK wrote a cook book.
What if it had some really great recipes in it.
Its one thing to buy books written by racists or homophobes, its another thing to buy books written by people who actively work to take away the rights of other individuals.
I believe that homosexuals deserve the same rights as the rest of us and I cannot on clear conscience give money to someone who spends there time trying to undermine the rights of human beings.
That said, it looks like he does not make any money off shadow complex so I see no contradiction.
Fallacy. He isn't in the KKK, he doesn't argue that gays should be killed or anything like that. I haven't seen anything stating he HATES gay people. He just doesn't believe that gay people should be able to get married and have those rights. Which is different than hate.
What exactly was a fallacy?
I seriously don't understand.
I agree that OSC and the Grand Wizard(or what here he is called) use different tactics, and I agree that OSC probably doesn't even hate gay people. I just don't see how either of those facts change the point of my post. Unless you thought I was trying to equate the two people. That would be unfair and it was never my intention though my fake example and OSC's other books are very similar in the points that matter I do not think that OSC is a terrorist.
However I really have a problem with this:
He just doesn't believe that gay people should be able to get married and have those rights. Which is different than hate.
It justs smacks a little too much of the famous Stewie quote.
Its not so much that I want her to die... I just don't want her to be alive anymore
Which seems to me to be defending bigotry if its more academic and arm chair. Its not that I want to take their rights away, I just don't want them to have those rights.
The simple fact remains that OSC spends at least some of his free time trying to deprive people of their rights, I reference specifically to his member ship in the board of directors for "The National Organization for Marriage".
So if I have committed some error please tell me.
Right but the key word is hate, not terrorism or murderers. I agree that using the KKK is a rather lazy analogy (it, like using Darfur, is just godwinning with another comparison), but one can hate people without suicide bombs or murder.
I just want to clarify the justification that, if OSC isn't a terrorist, he's definitively incapable of hating homosexuals, despite rigorous and strenuous objections to their lifestyle.
One can also disagree with someone's lifestyle but not hate the person. It may seem a strange notion because so often people do get defensive about people thinking differently and it frequently causes people to get heated about each other. However, it is entirely possible that they can have "rigorous and strenuous objections to their lifestyle" and still not hate homosexuals.
It's worth noting that one characteristic does not entirely define a person, and if people realize that they can generally disagree without hatred.
Seth wrote:Right but the key word is hate, not terrorism or murderers. I agree that using the KKK is a rather lazy analogy (it, like using Darfur, is just godwinning with another comparison), but one can hate people without suicide bombs or murder.
I just want to clarify the justification that, if OSC isn't a terrorist, he's definitively incapable of hating homosexuals, despite rigorous and strenuous objections to their lifestyle.
One can also disagree with someone's lifestyle but not hate the person. It may seem a strange notion because so often people do get defensive about people thinking differently and it frequently causes people to get heated about each other. However, it is entirely possible that they can have "rigorous and strenuous objections to their lifestyle" and still not hate homosexuals.
It's worth noting that one characteristic does not entirely define a person, and if people realize that they can generally disagree without hatred.
That's at the crux of the matter, though. Basically, with the marriage equality matter, what it comes down to is gay folks like me are trying to say "Being gay isn't what matters. We just want to be treated like everybody else is," and those against it are saying "Your being gay matters, and you don't deserve to have access to the same rights us straight folks have."
I agree that you can disagree with someone's lifestyle and not hate the person, but it's one thing to say "I don't like the fact that you're gay, but I'm not going to grief you about it," and another to say "I don't like the fact that you're gay, and I'm going to make sure you are permanently treated like you're a second-class citizen, but I don't hate YOU personally."
OSC is saying the latter in both cases, and maybe even beyond that. Why am I going to give him any money? And if Chair Entertainment is along the same lines, no way in hell am I going to give them any of my money. I can spend those $10 on my husband.
One can also disagree with someone's lifestyle but not hate the person. It may seem a strange notion because so often people do get defensive about people thinking differently and it frequently causes people to get heated about each other. However, it is entirely possible that they can have "rigorous and strenuous objections to their lifestyle" and still not hate homosexuals.
It's worth noting that one characteristic does not entirely define a person, and if people realize that they can generally disagree without hatred.
Card's point of view is that homosexuality is a sin and that "hypocrite homosexuals" (his words, not mine) have chosen to forsake the Church in the path of their sinful lifestyle. If you are saying that the personal opinion that a group of people are hellbound is not hatred, then my friend, we have different definitions of the word. Allow me to quote Card:
And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such "tolerance" would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.
Now, if OSC were to have a glimmer of open mindedness such that the LDS Church was not the only path to heaven (and if he has written something along those lines, please enlighten me), I would change my opinion (slightly). But when OSC clearly lays out that the choice is God's way or the Gay way, I have no other option but to conclude he hates homosexuality and those who practice it proudly.
Remember we are not talking about repentent homosexuals, with whom Card has no problem. We are talking about homosexuals who do not view their actions as a sin. To them, Card says:
The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible
The man is an irrefutable hatemonger. Because he uses the pen and the Church to spread hatred instead of burning crosses does little, in my mind, to redeem him.
If you are saying that the personal opinion that a group of people are hellbound is not hatred, then my friend, we have different definitions of the word.
And just for the sake of context, this is not a concept of being hellbound many of you may be familiar with. The Mormon afterlife combines notions of Purgatory and Hell, expressed as Spirit Prison, and Outer Darkness. In Spirit Prison, as in Purgatory, a soul serves time based on the weight of their sins, and can expect to eventually go to one of three heavens, based on their level of faith. The lowest of these heavens is reserved for non-members of the Church, once their sins have been purged. Even murder.
Outer Darkness is reserved for those who have utterly renounced God--those who followed Lucifer in war with God, the excommunicated, and homosexuals. So a child molester can expect to get into heaven, as long as he wasn't a same-sex child molester.
Now, if OSC were to have a glimmer of open mindedness such that the LDS Church was not the only path to heaven (and if he has written something along those lines, please enlighten me), I would change my opinion (slightly).
Unlikely. The only way to the highest levels of heaven is through the Church, according to the Church.
Now, if OSC were to have a glimmer of open mindedness such that the LDS Church was not the only path to heaven (and if he has written something along those lines, please enlighten me), I would change my opinion (slightly). But when OSC clearly lays out that the choice is God's way or the Gay way, I have no other option but to conclude he hates homosexuality and those who practice it proudly.
I don't think he hates them, but he doesn't support them or their equality at all. That's enough for me to be against his products.
"I don't like the fact that you're gay, and I'm going to make sure you are permanently treated like you're a second-class citizen, but I don't hate YOU personally."
Isn't that President Obama's position?
Its wrong then too.
Its wrong then too.
Following your logic, isn't he like the KKK Wizard (or whatever they call themselves)....?
"I don't like the fact that you're gay, and I'm going to make sure you are permanently treated like you're a second-class citizen, but I don't hate YOU personally."Isn't that President Obama's position?
You don't see me handing him $10 voluntarily either.
OSC has said, and this is almost an exact quote, that he "doesn't hate the sinner, but does hate the sin."
I don't see the differentiation as being useful in this particular case.
OSC has said, and this is almost an exact quote, that he "doesn't hate the sinner, but does hate the sin."
I don't see the differentiation as being useful in this particular case.
From the article adam linked earleir:
In my own view, I am walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner.
That taken from an entire paragraph where Card paints himself as the martyred middle grounder, hated by extremists on all sides.
I could pretty much quote the entire article. It's odd to find such a damning piece of text for anyone.
If you are saying that the personal opinion that a group of people are hellbound is not hatred, then my friend, we have different definitions of the word.
It seems we do have different definitions.
If someone were wishing a group of people to hell than that could be a case of hatred. However, if someone's personal opinion is that the being who determines who is condemned commands followers to forsake their personal desires in order to better follow him/her/it, doesn't it also fall to order that they would also believe that those people ultimately condemn themselves?
The person could be best friends with some of the people that they feel are condemning themselves by not being willing to sacrifice what they want (which the person feels is immoral living), and instead of it causing hatred, it could very well cause concern and ultimately sadness.
I can honestly say that there is a horribly long list of sins including lying, hatred (which Christ equates to murder), etc... that I'm aware of that myself, my wife, and every single person I've ever met find ourselves committing. I can honestly say I neither hate myself or any other person on the planet simply because of a sin.
Sin - A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
In other words, it's a choice we make that removes us from God. Regardless of which one it is, if you believe hell exists and that God doesn't like what you doing it (whether it's a lustful relationship or taking pride in yourself for evangelizing to your neighbor) you're condemning yourself.
Though to get more solidly back on topic, if you feel like you'd be supporting a stance you don't believe it I would suggest avoiding it. It seems counter productive, with so many good games out there, to buy one that you feel will ultimately fund a social movement that will take our community in a direction you don't want it going.
Kier wrote:Its wrong then too.
Following your logic, isn't he like the KKK Wizard (or whatever they call themselves)....?
No, but it is a weasely no.
Obama has the ability to enact change but chooses not to act.
OSC has some small ability to enact change and attempts to.
The Grand Wizard has some small ability to enact change and attempts to.
So no, while still morally questionable I don't think Obama's stance is just like the fictional Wizard.
I think you might be getting caught up by the extreme nature of the KKK though. The KKK is especially morally wrong because of their history and methods and so it might be my fault for using them to illustrate a point but fundamentally the "National Organization for Marriage"and the KKK have a similar goal. Preventing some targeted group from acquiring specific rights.
Any individual who makes there cause the persecution of some group does not deserve my money in any capacity I can avoid it.
I will mention again that I speak in principle since this specific case, OSC and shadow complex, there is no direct contradiction.
Though to get more solidly back on topic, if you feel like you'd be supporting a stance you don't believe it I would suggest avoiding it. It seems counter productive, with so many good games out there, to buy one that you feel will ultimately fund a social movement that will take our community in a direction you don't want it going.
I haven't contributed a single penny of my money toward Card's literature or anything I knew he was involved since I found out his stances on homosexuality a decade or so ago.
Now, whether that could be called a boycott or not seems to be something left to the sementarians of the group.
However, if someone's personal opinion is that the being who determines who is condemned commands followers to forsake their personal desires in order to better follow him/her/it, doesn't it also fall to order that they would also believe that those people ultimately condemn themselves?
You make a point. It must be quite satisfying for people to escape the guilt of condemning their friends to hell by blaming such a terrible punishment on the actions of their God or their friends.
You make a point. It must be quite satisfying for people to escape the guilt of condemning their friends to hell by blaming such a terrible punishment on the actions of their God or their friends.
My point was that there was no guilt to be given to anyone.
To believers, God will enforce the consequences that were laid out when the law was. They should feel nothing but pity for someone unwilling to change in order to save themselves the consequence, but they shouldn't blame the people for their decision, because the people were weighing their benefit to the consequences and decided it was okay.
Granted, they were acting under the pretense is a eternal separation from a God they either don't believe exists, or doesn't exist in a way that would enforce them to live differently. However, then they have nothing to worry about.
First, when you say "believers", are you referring to LDS (which would be more on topic) or a more mainstream version of Protestant Christianity? I am not a Mormon, nor am I extremely familiar with their belief structure.
But I don't necessarily need to be. it's a very simple structure, one that's repeated endlessly -- usually with religious overtone but not always so. You're describing a structure in which the group in power demonizes another group, condemns them based on the mantra of the deity they worship, and then pities them because their God hates them.
They dance around their bigotry by using phrases like "love the sinner hate the sin" and "pity those who condemn themselves," but really that's all window dressing based on a fear based infrastructure designed to reward obedience to those in power and cast out those who are different. It's a powerful system, but it's a system of control nonetheless.
Sorry for derail. To respond:
To believers, God will enforce the consequences that were laid out when the law was.
So you disagree, fundamentally, with OSC's idea that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals? To do anything else seems to be stealing God's job as Judge.
[edit] For clarity, I am aware that you are using Paul Tillich's definition of sin as separation from God. It is not the only definition, nor is it the one I assume Mormons use when describing homosexuals.
"I don't like the fact that you're gay, and I'm going to make sure you are permanently treated like you're a second-class citizen, but I don't hate YOU personally."Isn't that President Obama's position?
He has taken Sweden's stance, he won't promote any agenda, and won't stand in the way of any. He has shown support, recently, to repeal the Constitutional Amendment that never belonged there in the first place.
Joe Biden during the campaign took the new age conservative attitude of, with a lawyer a gay person can have the same protections and rights as heterosexuals(with regard to wills, child custody). And Obama took a similar tact. Both of which many people were not happy with.
Orson Scott Card is an active anti-gay activist. Contributing money to the oppression of LGBT people. He's basically Anita Bryant.
I typed a response to this thread a few days ago, but it got swallowed by the internets and never made it onto the forum. Here's a summary, which I'm surprised to find hasn't really been raised yet.
OSC's involvement in Shadow Complex is pretty limited. He didn't write the script, or the story, it's merely set in a narrative universe of his creation. As a result, my desire to withold my money from an 'OSC-related-item' is almost moot. At the very least, it's very heavily outweighed by my desire as a gamer to support the creators of truly great games, of which Shadow Complex is (arguably) one.
The tiny impact of my $15 spent on Shadow Complex encouraging other game creators far outstrips any effect my not purchasing the game would have on OSC, a successful author who we can assume is financially secure enough to not miss the pennies he would get of my fifteen bucks.
By all means, don't support bigots. But don't let that stop you from supporting great games. Like Warren Spector said, fun wins, right?
We as a society need to separate the concept of a civil union and the rights such a union confers with the concept of marriage which is a contract between two individuals and /insert deity here/.
If the voting citizens of a state wish to confer the rights of a civil union to a homosexual couple, more power to them. Just don't expect that same homosexual couple to walk from the courthouse, civil union in hand, to the Baptist church down the street and expect the pastor to marry them in the eyes of God.
From the article adam linked earleir:
In my own view, I am walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner.
The idea that he could use that ridiculous phrase without bursting out in laughter is beyond me. He is applying that as a universal constraint on Christianity but doesn't realize the full implications.
It sounds great in the abstract, but is a disaster in the personal.
You will never hear anyone ever mutter the following (or anything like it) at the family reunion:
"I love Grandpa, but I hate the fact he molests my sisters."
MacBrave. That is why I think Germany has a good system. You need a judge to marry, grant a union union to you. For a country where Church and State need be separated, the idea that the US allows clergy to oversee a legal contract boggles my mind. Especially since more than half end up in the court anyway for a divorce.
Or Spain, no one is legally married, it is al civil unions.
And it is that subset of churches, that wants a theocracy, that wants God and Christ plastered in text books, etc who push for these bans.
MacBrave. That is why I think Germany has a good system. You need a judge to marry, grant a union union to you. For a country where Church and State need be separated, the idea that the US allows clergy to oversee a legal contract boggles my mind. Especially since more than half end up in the court anyway for a divorce.
Or Spain, no one is legally married, it is al civil unions.
And it is that subset of churches, that wants a theocracy, that wants God and Christ plastered in text books, etc who push for these bans.
Even Mexico is like Germany. You are required to have a magistrate or judge type person to legally marry you. Then you get someone else to do the religious wedding.
So you disagree, fundamentally, with OSC's idea that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals? To do anything else seems to be stealing God's job as Judge.
What government based privileges a couple of any sort that is "married" by the court should not be determined by religion in a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state. Trying to legislate Christianity (or any other belief structure) is one of those things that I've always disagreed with.
However, to say that someone who thinks that they can legislate their definition of morality is doing so out of hate was where I was disagreeing. I've seen plenty of cases of this where it's people thinking they're going to "save the world" through government. I'd wager Card feels he's trying to help people.
Ultimately, not buying this game to "punish" people for their beliefs is odd to me. However, if you feel you'd be helping fuel an organization driving society to behave, in your opinion, contrary to how they should, or feel that the game itself would bother you due to some hidden agenda, then I would avoid it.
KingGorilla wrote:MacBrave. That is why I think Germany has a good system. You need a judge to marry, grant a union union to you. For a country where Church and State need be separated, the idea that the US allows clergy to oversee a legal contract boggles my mind. Especially since more than half end up in the court anyway for a divorce.
Or Spain, no one is legally married, it is al civil unions.
And it is that subset of churches, that wants a theocracy, that wants God and Christ plastered in text books, etc who push for these bans.
Even Mexico is like Germany. You are required to have a magistrate or judge type person to legally marry you. Then you get someone else to do the religious wedding.
Ditto Ireland albeit recently. I'm very hard pressed to tell you where in Europe they don't.
Pages