Clarify please: Do you disavow the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics?

There is the book he wrote that suggested Hamlet's father was a pedophile who turned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay (in addition to other characters) by molesting them as children. Or the fact that he refers to gays as "tragic genetic mixups". None of this seems anti-gay to you, but instead is "pro-marriage?"

The second sentence from my previous post was missing a word (see it in bold):

"Nevertheless, he thinks some of his peers trying to get Card fired is WAY scarier as he explains below:"

"There are a number of comic book creators who believe something very different to what I do. Some of those beliefs offend me. Sometimes they even inform their art, something that Card is unlikely to be accused of in Superman.

Some try to draw a line between an opinionated person and an activist. I disagree, any famous person who expresses an opinion, especially in this day and age, de facto becomes an activist for that opinion.

It’s a very dangerous game, it has led in the past to witchtrials, McCarthyite or otherwise, and it’s no better than the actions of, say, One Million Moms. And next time? It could be you… "

"Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books."

"Homosexuality" as originally coined is a hypothesized subject who spends their entire life being exclusively attracted to like gendered partners.

Mr. Card is speaking from a position that holds sexual promiscuity - what you are really pimping - to be aberrant behavior and a destructive influence if not kept in check - history shows this to be true.

Promiscuity: miscellaneous mingling or selection of persons or things

Aberrant: straying from the right or normal way

Your vey biology testifies against you Chris; which probably explains why you are desperate to have it redefined into something it is incapable of ever becoming.

Impressive gymnastics, but all for nought, I'm afraid. Where did I say that Card advocated killing people? Learn to read

First: " 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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society"

Context is everything, showing it is in reference to homosexuality, not the case of sadism, child molesters, etc. that you seem to conflate with homosexuality. His reason for this advocation, you ask?

"The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."

So basically, he wants to keep all people in the closet, Little Man.

His advocation of the overthrow of governmnet: "“by whatever means is made possible or necessary." It's the "or necessary" comment that renders your interpretation of "voting" null and void.

If yes, then, why your racist-like attitude in your comments here?

Thanks for the heads up!

Where is the word "overthrown" in the quote?

Where in the quote is the term: "equal members of society"?

Let me help you analyze this (no offense meant):

Criminals, for instance, turn from acceptable, equal citizens to unacceptable citizens (and therefore with unequal rights) at the point they are found guilty.

To "destroy that government and bring it down" does not mean killing the leaders or staff of that government. It merely destroys the political power of that government, and replaces it with another. By the way, this happens in the US either every 4 or 8 years, and is perfectly legal.

You read what you want to read into the quotes you selected to quote. . . That's called "bias". it's perfectly obvious to readers, but not to you. But, then. . . that is how bias works (in all of us).

You yourself quoted the date (1990) of the quotes.

That was before DOMA (1996) or Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and therefore no government needs to be destroyed according to and by Orson Scott Card, and replaced. But you state he believes (now) the government should be destroyed (now). That's obsolete, man. . .

As to 'equal members of society', the phrase: "those who flagrantly violate society’s REGULATION of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens" was and is lawful, as in the case of sadism, child molesters, and whatever the regulation prohibits. Again, after 2003, your claim is obsolete.

Need more help reading English?

To quote Mister Card: "[Gays] cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." Basically, Card wants all gays to go back into the closet and have laws on the books against homosexuality. Card, in his own words, doesn't even want to tolerate homosexuality. That hardly seems fair, now does it, Randy?

Card is more than "pro-marriage", he is anti-gay. That is why there is an uproar over him authoring Superman comics. Anyone who tells you it's simply because of his "promarriage" views is lying.

What is your definition of "unequal treatment"; is it wrong to treat different things differently?

According to the 14th Amendment you can treat different things differently providing a duly constituted law allows for it:

"Cannot be denied equal treatment WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."

"NOM is misleading when they say the opposition is based purely on Orson's view of marriage."

Perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there.

"There is far more to it than that, namely that he views gays as being deserving of "unequal treatment".

That's his viewpoint, not NOM's.

"Asking NOM to comment on these views, in light of their defense of his views of marriage, is perfectly valid."

Okay, but you are assuming that his views are NOM's and they aren't.

NOM is misleading when they say the opposition is based purely on Orson's view of marriage. There is far more to it than that, namely that he views gays as being deserving of "unequal treatment". Asking NOM to comment on these views, in light of their defense of his views of marriage, is perfectly valid.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush there. NOM agrees with Scott-Card when it comes to his views on Marriage. You don't honestly believe they agree with him because he wants to overthrow the government or wants to make them "less than equal citizens"(which they never have been).

That would be like saying because I agree with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul on fiscal policy, then I logically must vote for them. Never mind there's more to supporting someone(i.e. values) than agreeing with them on just a handful or one issue.

I find it odd that you insist on referencing these perverts as if they were the mythical Unicorn from antiquity.

Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.

I just find it odd that NOM supports someone who proposes making gays and lesbians "less than equal citizens" and claims in the same breath to not be anti-gay. I also find it odd that NOM sees fit to back someone who as advocated the overthrow of the government. Perhaps Brian or Maggie would care to comment on Orson's views.

So he espouses a point of view that is entirely his and automatically we all must be in agreement? I would people who claim to be so open minded to not jump to such absurd conclusions.

Orson Scott Card believes the GOP is rabidly xenophobic but I don't lump him in with people who favor an open border policy because of his outlandish views.

If these miscreants truly believed their proclivity were justifiable they would not be working this hard to have it declared to be something other then it is.

Obviously; they are the ones who have a problem with the choices they made.

"“How 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."

These are quotes from Orson Scott Card. I have to wonder if NOM supports the Orson Scott Card's view that the government should be overthrown if there is legal gay marriage and that gays should not be equal members of society

I loved reading Enders Game.