Hey, not all of us Mormons are homophobes.
That's like saying that all catholic priests are child abusers.
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books^ But some do believe that ([edit]the pedophile priest thing, I mean[/edit]). Usually said with their next breath is "all religions are evil" or somesuch, if they hadn't already said it earlier.
edited 21st May '12 8:10:00 AM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump![]()
Not saying that you are, but some Mormon writers (I'm looking at you, Stephenie Meyer) aren't exactly presenting themselves in a good way. Though in her case, it's not about homophobia, but other things. Unless she's made a statement about it too, I don't know.
edited 21st May '12 8:12:21 AM by whataboutme
Please don't feed the trolls!The Card quotes are insensitively phrased and could stand to be put a LOT more charitably, but his societal views were par for the course at the beginning of his writing career. He seems to like going off half-cocked about matters outside his expertise, but that describes many writers of all political persuasions. And he doesn't seem to want to see his beliefs imposed with an iron fist; rather, he'd like to see the kind of societal consensus on the subject that was unremarkable only recently. There are several of these issues on which he & I would probably disagree, but it seems like a bit much to say he's beyond the moral pale.
Arguably, a guy like China Mieville believes far worse things, with far direr implications for the people who disagree with him, but I'm not moved to boycott him on political/religious grounds. Mutatis mutandis, I'd say the same about Card.
Granted. I'm saying that, despite the truly weird speed with which prevailing societal mores have done a 180, it's not surprising that many individuals' views on the matter haven't. And one's free to disagree with those views, but they were nigh-universal so recently, and are still so widespread, that it's ridiculous to treat them if they were something outrageous and repellent.
It didn't really change all of a sudden, it's just that our generation just came of age recently, and we're a lot more open to this stuff than the previous one. Which, if you have parents and caring older folk who are willing to listen to reason, can contribute greatly to cutting down on oppression.
Only a maniac wants to see someone suffer.
In the first place, fashion is not germane to questions of this sort. If something is right in 2012, it was also right in 1950, 950, and 1950 B.C., and will be in A.D. 19,500. Same for goes for that which is wrong.
In the second place, I believe you've wandered in from a different argument, in a different thread, and might be a trifle lost. None of the principals here seem intent on imposing much of anything legally, though both Card and his detractors would like it if their respective moral worldviews had more de facto force. That's hardly surprising, and a little silly to deplore.
Repressiveness isn't oppressiveness, it's holding down the self where outright oppression is holding others down. It's less ill will and more "I grew up in a place where certain principles were forced upon me, I adapted, and came to like them. Therefore, I can't really understand what you like, and as I've learned you're going to Hell for doing it, please, please, please stop for your own sake."
Some people just can't express this without mockery, because what's not understood or even accepted by others winds up completely "self evident" to the mockers.
edited 22nd May '12 2:14:15 AM by Journeyman
I don't want to get too far out in the weeds, but I wasn't saying that in order to blame anybody. I was just saying that "it's 2012, not 1950" is a fatuous kind of argument: it implies that ethics & morals change like hemlines, and that what's right is a function of what year it is.
It also implies that this year's moral fashions are inevitably superior to last year's, and that each generation is necessarily more enlightened than the one preceding—an assumption that history couldn't possibly refute more forcibly.
True, but the fact is, an opinion was more POPULAR in the 1950s. Thus, you're more likely to have it. I can say the same thing if someone wore 1950s clothing, which is a cultural phenomenon within itself (—studied history of fashion—). I think it was more of a statement of the popularity of the opinion, and the general acceptance of it.
Read my stories!There is such a thing as a definite and absolute definition of right and wrong. Our moral sense is an imperfect imitation for an imperfect observer with non-flawless perception in an imperfect world.
But there is such a thing as absolute true right and wrong. We, as observers, cannot comprehend such ideals; so we have what works for us.
Nobody should be defined by their opinions, but nobody should be excused for their views either. People have opinions based in what they think is true. Yes, OSC is not responsible, perhaps, for the context of his bigotry, but he is responsible for the content.
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton booksEven if we grant all this, the point is that however out of step with current fashion OSC's views might be, they're scarcely in pre-modern "burn the witch" territory. Disagreeing with him is fine, but I'd submit that anyone who thinks his views are weird or worthy of pariah-hood is, frankly, a little sheltered.
Writers can be a capricious bunch, with opinions that are all over the map. I assure you that many authors—maybe even most authors—have social or political hobbyhorses at least as noxious or potentially harmful as Card's. If OSC is worth boycotting, you can't just stop with him.

Society of Saints, which is what he mentioned in one of the snippets, is Mormon, if I recall correctly. Someone else in this thread also already stated he was.