Orson Scott Card and Homosexuality

ourchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
13,105
Location
Philippines
Paul O'Brien on Orson Scott Card

Just thought this might interest some people who are waiting for Orson Scott Card's Ultimate Iron Man: An article by Paul O'Brien of Ninth Art, which has less to do with comics and more about an interesting take on homophobia and the thin lines of tolerance. The ending falls a little flat for me, but hey it's a provoking read.

http://ninthart.com/display.php?article=972
Novelist Orson Scott Card is coming to Marvel with an Ultimate spin on Iron Man, and he's bringing a cloud of controversy in his wake. Paul O'Brien asks, should Card's homophobic views make a difference to potential readers?
 
*Edit, just before I launch into my rant, thanks to ourchair for finding and posting this article. I do believe your commited to expanding our minds. Its quite novel.

Its really a shame how some people can develope. Paul O'Brien put out a really accurate view of homophobia in this article and this showed me something I never knew about Card before. It saddens me to know that someone who's talent I so respected suffers from this kind of thing. Because knowing this now, he is lowered in my opinion. I can't help but have a kind of contempt for someone so set in their ways that they can't accept the changing attitudes to homosexuality and I deeply regret that this is the dominant viewpoint of a huge number of people in the older age brackets particularly. This kind of set intolerance is one of the things that depresses and sometimes almost sickens me about old people. But its not confined to "elderly" old people. My friends parents are all around their mid 40s. When he came out to them, being kicked out of home was a serious possibility. To have this kind of cruelty and intolerance directed at ones own child disgusts me. Seriously. Thankfully, (for me too since I've known this guy and his friends since I was about 8), his parents were of the good variety. This isn't always the case.

As for the accusation (because thats the way its worded) that homosexuals often suffer their first sexual experience as rape, molestation or otherwise unwholesome deals, I can only say that yeah, its true. Maybe if vicious old men like Card spent more time helping out where they could "using their powers for good" as it were, instead of writing hysterical paranoid rants against something as simple as gay marriage, then maybe the world wouldn't put so much dangerous pressure on gays that they get pushed into places when bad things happen to them. The number of homosexuals who have been in abusive relationships at somepoint in their life is horrifying. Yet its still happening because there's so much stigma assosciated with it that normal teenage gay guys can't go to other teenage gay guys because they're either so deep in the closet they're out the other side, or so frightened themselves that they can end up in dangerous situations and unhealthy or even abusive relationships and have nowhere else to turn.

I'm just ranting about this because some of my friends copped some serious flack when they came out and that really woke me up to how entrenched homophobia is. I knew that it was "bad" before but I never realised just how dangerous it proves, both physically and mentally.
 
Last edited:
Caduceus said:
*Edit, just before I launch into my rant, thanks to ourchair for finding and posting this article. I do believe your commited to expanding our minds. Its quite novel.

Glad it's provoked such a "rant" in you. This revelation disappointed me as well, because I was looking forward to Ultimate Iron Man.

Since most creative types tend to be of the left-wing/liberal variety, Card's views struck me as surprising. Even known conservative artists, writers and such tend to be polite enough to cloak their opposition towards homosexuality in tolerance. In that sense, they're not necessarily "homophobic" as they are "morally opposed". They do not support homosexuality, but do not see it as a point to argue with others in some kind of ideological pissing contest.

Which I think is better, because a moral opposition doesn't necessarily mean you act upon your views to the point of the exclusion and alienation of others. Of course, there are MANY people who do act upon their moral indignation but that's beside the point. The fact that Orson Scott Card sees the need to preach about homosexuality as if it were a social malignancy suggests little to smile about. And with his reputation for ham-fisted writing, you can bet he'll be heavy handed about a whole lot of other things.
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
I read this over at comixfan like a week or two ago. People over there are actually boycotting Ultimate Iron Man because of this.

Attacking closemindedness with closemindedness - how hypocritical can one be? :roll:
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
I read this over at comixfan like a week or two ago. People over there are actually boycotting Ultimate Iron Man because of this.

Well, I read this before as well, but I only dug it up cause I wanted an excuse to start my first ever thread. W00t!

I think boycotting Ultimate Iron Man over this is silly. I hope they don't think that sales figures are going to affect Orson Scott Card's views. I mean, the number of women and gay people who stopped reading Cerebus out of disgust over Dave Sim's views know this first hand. True, it means that their money won't go towards supporting Card's career, but the absolute value of that impact is next to nil.
 
Wait, can someone help me out. Call me stupid, but I really don't get where O'Brien stands... I mean, I must've read it wrong or something but it's got to be something if people are boycotting UIM for this.
 
UltimateE said:
Goody I'm not changing your subnic again. :wink:

Its just so tempting isn't it

Goodwill said:
Wait, can someone help me out. Call me stupid, but I really don't get where O'Brien stands... I mean, I must've read it wrong or something but it's got to be something if people are boycotting UIM for this.

Ok, quick explanation.

The article is written by O'Brien. Unless I missed something, I don't think he has anything to do with UIM.

I'd say O'Brien's stance on homosexuality is indifference. He doesn't care if your gay or not.

UIM is written by Card, whom the article is about. People are boycotting Iron Man because it would be supporting such views to buy works by that author. Or at least, thats their reasoning.
 
Well, where does Card stand with homosexuality? Is he the one that doesn't care? I mean, why would O'Brien be the one responsible for something being boycotted?
 
Goodwill said:
Well, where does Card stand with homosexuality? Is he the one that doesn't care? I mean, why would O'Brien be the one responsible for something being boycotted?

Sorry, I forgot to put that in. If you read the article again, looking directly at the quotes from Card's letter, you'll find that he seems to be pretty rabid on the subject of homosexuality. The words "taint on society" seem to sum up his opinion fairly well. Basically, he's not even trying to couch himself in tolerance, he's pretty much openly anti-gay.
 
Which is where I think a lot of Americans are at this point... We're basing elections, political schemes, etc. all on emotions, when those kinds of things should be put aside. I'm sorry but that's where we're at as a nation. There's no division between church and state anymore... No wonder "Jihad" has been turned into "Holy War". I know I'm not the best person to say this after the Ultimate Colossus thread fiasco, however, I think I'm becoming more tolerant by talking to Strangefate.
 
Goodwill said:
There's no division between church and state anymore... No wonder "Jihad" has been turned into "Holy War". I know I'm not the best person to say this after the Ultimate Colossus thread fiasco, however, I think I'm becoming more tolerant by talking to Strangefate.

Exposure is the best cure for intolerance. But just a quick point, a Jihad is the arabic word for holy war. Thats where the assosciations come from.
 
No, that's actually what the media wants you to believe. "Jihad" in the arabic language is a word that actually means a religious duty for God. To them, that could mean anything. It could mean to them run a plane into an American building but it could also mean giving a meal to a family who doesn't have food, you know? We're taking stuff out of context to make them look like they are more the bad guys than we are but that doesn't necessarily hold water when you really think about it.
 
Goodwill said:
No, that's actually what the media wants you to believe. "Jihad" in the arabic language is a word that actually means a religious duty for God.

In some ways thats correct. A Jihad is any service that enhances the muslim cause (their duty to God). This takes many forms but because Islam has had so many terrorism and fundamentalist based groups spring up, the word has changed its meaning. Words do this all the time and its now being accepted as the legitimate new word in arabic as well.

If you didn't know it before, Nice originally meant correct and accurate rather that pleasant. Thanks to Good Omens for that little fact.
 
Well, I don't know why Jihad's meaning has been changed, really... The Islamic faith shares more similar qualities with Christianity than it does differences. We wouldn't devote our lives to the point of sacrifice, sure, but we've based our lives on the same principles as theirs, yet, both sides has neglected to see this yet.
 
Because it is not the point of either of those religions to try and find common ground with each other. In fact, I'd venture to guess that no religion actively aims to find common ground with another religion.
 
Which is said when it's the main focus of a war... Because it would mean that there's no apparent or direct end to it.
 
What a tosser

I wonder if his reasoning is based on some twisting of religion or perhaps he just thinks it's yucky. Though, you know what they say about guys that protest too much..
 

Latest posts

Back
Top