Friction at DC

[Guy Gardener]

In France, you can marry live stock, the dead and inanimate objects.

Although Superman is not married at the moment, surely aliens marrying human beings is a million times worse than gay humans marrying each other because it's technically bestiality... Which is probably why black people in America were not allowed to get married (to each other) until 1896, because it was publically and conventionally believed that they did not have souls, or at least "real" souls, and inter-racial marriage, which would create children with mixed souls, was not legally permitted until 1967.

(There were a hell of a lot more ehtnicities than just black and white back then (or always) which has me wondering if Native Americans might not have been allowed to Mary the Japanese and when that legally changed?)

The klan wear hoods for a reason.

They are wussies.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Kestrel wrote:

---

I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to work at all, but actions have consequences and the consequence of his embracing and furthering such organizations is that people boycott him.

And if I overuse sickening, this thread has also overused consequence. Yes, there are consequences. If someone wants to boycott and not buy this issue because of Scott Card's beliefs, that's their prerogative, as is spreading that message and asking others to do the same. It's also their prerogative to ask for him to be removed from the project all together and for it to be released to the public without his work.

I just, on a personal level, have a huge problem with people doing the later and will say so. I don't see anything wrong with "I won't buy a book with his product in it;" I do see something wrong with saying, "Therefore, you shouldn't be able to buy the book if it has his product in it either."

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Although Superman is not married at the moment, surely aliens marrying human beings is a million times worse than gay humans marrying each other because it's technically bestiality...

Bestiality is only wrong because animals have no right of consent. If other species, be it animal or alien, had the same ability to speak, communicate, and express willing feelings of love and affection like Superman can, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

[Professor Zoom]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

I just, on a personal level, have a huge problem with people doing the later and will say so. I don't see anything wrong with "I won't buy a book with his product in it;" I do see something wrong with saying, "Therefore, you shouldn't be able to buy the book if it has his product in it either."

Should a corporation then be forced to publish something they no longer want to publish?

I understand what you are saying, but that is the point of a boycott. To stop something from happening. To force a company to stop doing something.

[Atticus]

OSC is perfectly at liberty to express his idiotic, bigoted views.

In response, those who have run their petition are equally at liberty to do so.

DC are at liberty to publish or not publish his story - as Christopher has said above, it is their property.

The only thing they could not do is withhold payment from OSC. That would be breach of contract for no legally justifiable reason.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

You don't like Scott Card's views on gay marriage*? Cool. Don't buy it.

Well said. That is the poit of personal choice. I'm not fond of some of the personal political views of those behind SNL, so guess what? I do watch it.

It's situations like this that make liberals seem as totalitarian and repressive as conservatives. Fight words with words. Make your point and make it clear; don't lobby for someone to actually lose their fucking job because you disagree with them.

Whether one was contracted for a one-off project, or something long term, his personal views are not representing the brand, and the low response to this would suggest few really care. However, modern factions of liberalism is so fueled by its own attempt to supress all thought not following theirs, that they cannot see the utter hypocrisy of their actions. One silver lining is that it serves to expose just how "fair minded" this kind of liberal is not, when they would be the first to scream if someone advocated action against them for personal views.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Should a corporation then be forced to publish something they no longer want to publish?

Of course not.

Atticus wrote:

---

OSC is perfectly at liberty to express his idiotic, bigoted views.

In response, those who have run their petition are equally at liberty to do so.

DC are at liberty to publish or not publish his story - as Christopher has said above, it is their property.

The only thing they could not do is withhold payment from OSC. That would be breach of contract for no legally justifiable reason.

None of which, so far as I can tell, has been disputed by anyone.

[Guy Gardener]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

Bestiality is only wrong because animals have no right of consent. If other species, be it animal or alien, had the same ability to speak, communicate, and express willing feelings of love and affection like Superman can, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

Just because they can't talk, it doesn't mean that dogs are not capable of emotional loyalty and love, and if "you" are in some sort of naked situation and that dog who loves you, who you have had a master pet relationship with for years, at that moment, of their own choice, free will and volition, begins to lick your genitals because they love you and respect that since as far back as they can remember you've always kept their kibble bowl full, isn't that the dogs consensual impetus to want to make your genitals explode with joy?

You are a superior life form.

It's your job as a superior lifeforms to dictate right from wrong to an inferior life form too stupid to know no better.

Which is why God wrote the bible for us.

(The real ugly fact of what I said to take away from this, is that I equate marriage to keeping a kibble bowl full.)

[JoeZhang]

This is why you need a mirror - so you can see the look of love in that pooch's eyes.

[Professor Zoom]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Well said. That is the poit of personal choice. I'm not fond of some of the personal political views of those behind SNL, so guess what? I do watch it.

Great! What's your point? If they did something that offended a large enough people who would choose to boycott it, cause what, it would be in their best financial interests to change.

Because they are in the business to make money. And numbers talk. (It's probably why the Million Moms boycott of JC Penny's hiring of Ellen didn't work. Because they are like 12 of them.)

So, you watch things you might get offended by, what is your point? That you're the bigger person? Or MAYBE it's because SNL doesn't REALLY go all that far? Even in its Satire?

Whether one was contracted for a one-off project, or something long term, his personal views are not representing the brand, and the low response to this would suggest few really care. However, modern factions of liberalism is so fueled by its own attempt to supress all thought not following theirs, that they cannot see the utter hypocrisy of their actions. One silver lining is that it serves to expose just how "fair minded" this kind of liberal is not, when they would be the first to scream if someone advocated action against them for personal views.

I would argue his PUBLIC advocacy of Straight only marriage DOES damage their brand.

Shouldn't that be reason enough to get rid of him? While 16,000 signatures don't seem like a lot, it's a pretty significant number when you consider how many comics are ACTUALLY sold nowadays.

[Marc]

I wonder how many people are getting their panties in a bunch over DC canning Card's story yet have no issues when anti-gay groups call for boycotts against gay friendly companies.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Marc wrote:

---

I wonder how many people are getting their panties in a bunch over DC canning Card's story yet have no issues when anti-gay groups call for boycotts against gay friendly companies.

I have no problem with any anti-gay person not wanting to support gay friendly companies nor a pro-gay person not wanting to support anti-gay companies (like Chik-Fil-A). I would have a problem if either of them actively said their goal was to make those companies go out of business. Not that I think they shouldn't be able to say that, just that I personally wouldn't like it.

Please don't try to make this issue about mean homophobes having a double standard when it comes to gay things. I've had cocks in my mouth many times. The fact that this is connected to the issue of homosexuality is incidental to me. For me, it boils down to: I don't have a problem with someone refusing to buy a product because they don't like the views of someone involved; I do have a problem with someone wanting that to extend beyond themselves and people who agree with them so that no one can purchase it.

[Locutus of Bored]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

The petition is sickening.

You don't like Scott Card's views on gay marriage*? Cool. Don't buy it. There's plenty of other Superman books by plenty of other people who are just fine with homosexual marriage. But to actively campaign for the man to lose his job because you disagree with him?? He has a right to his views and he has a right to make a living if he's good at what he does (having read Ender's Game but nothing else by him, I certainly would say he is going by that), just as you're free to not support him. And don't give me any of this crap about Superman being an icon and therefore, we can't have someone who doesn't have the same value system as us writing for him even though those views probably have absolutely nothing to do with the story whatsoever.

It's situations like this that make liberals seem as totalitarian and repressive as conservatives. Fight words with words. Make your point and make it clear; don't lobby for someone to actually lose their fucking job because you disagree with them. And because Sprouse has quit, not because he disagreed with Card, but because "The media surrounding this story reached the point where it took away from the actual work, and that’s something I wasn’t comfortable with," they actually succeeded in harming this man's job because they don't like his views on a subject.

*My own view is that the government should stay out of marriage period, but if they have to, then two men or two women (or three men, or two women and a man, or whatever any consenting, conscious adult wants) should be equal to anyone else who wants to. But that's irrelevant.

Here, let's apply your same zeal in defending Card to those defending gay rights, and see why they might not be content to just sit idly by instead of petitioning for his removal from the anthology:

Orson Scott Card's anti-gay activism is sickening.

You don't like gay marriage? Cool. Don't do it. There are plenty of other people and plenty of other churches who are just fine with heterosexual marriage. But to actively campaign for people to not be able to get married and experience the benefits thereof because you disagree with them? They have a right to live their lives how they choose and love who they want as long as it's not harming anyone else (having read no scientific evidence that gay marriage harms anyone, that seems to be the case), just as you're free to not support them [as long as you're not harming anyone by interfering with their lives - notice the difference there?]. And don't give me any of this crap about marriage being a sacred bond (when half of them end in divorce) and therefore we can't have someone who doesn't have the same sexual orientation as us getting married even though their marriage has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's marriage whatsoever.

It's situations like this that make Orson Scott Card and the LDS Church seem as totalitarian and repressive as other anti-gay conservatives. Live and let live. Live your life how you want to; don't lobby for someone else to actually lose their fucking rights because you disagree with them. And because Card has actively promoted anti-gay legislation, not because homosexuality affects him in any way, but because "It's something he isn’t comfortable with," he actually succeeded in harming other people's jobs, formal recognition of their partnerships, chances to adopt, medical visitation rights, etc. because he doesn't like the way they live.

* My own view is that the government should stay out of marriage period, but since that's not the case and there are numerous tax and other benefits relating to marriage, then two men or two women (or three men, or two women and a man, or whatever any consenting, conscious adult wants) should be equal to anyone else who wants to. But that's entirely relevant to this issue because Scott Card does not extend the same respect for minding your own fucking business about what other consenting adults do to gay people.

See what a difference that made? And then you don't come across like a hypocrite for giving OSC a complete pass for actively trying to interfere in other people's lives while flipping out about people exercising their own right to boycott or sign petitions against his participation in a comic anthology about a wildly popular superhero who is supposed to stand for truth, justice, and the American (but not exclusively so) way, which is something Card seems to need a refresher course in.

[Nerys Myk]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

I do have a problem with someone wanting that to extend beyond themselves and people who agree with them so that no one can purchase it.

That's something for the company that produces the product to decide. They will weigh the pros and cons.

[Gotham Central]

I'll say again, and no one has yet to disprove this...had Card been expressing openly racist, anti-Semitic or sexist ideas and openly advocating limiting the rights of minorities, jews, or women AND been a high profile member of an organization that supported such positions...this conversation would not be happening. NO ONE would be here defending him.