The touchy subject of OSC

[Valentine]

I've been meaning to write about the OSC controversy for a while now and finally found the rights words to do it last night.

http://www.enderwiggin.net/2013/02/22/enders-game-succeed-author/

[enderwiggin]

Well written article, Valentine, thanks for sharing!

[Valentine]

Since I keep getting new Google Alerts about it, I'm going to use this thread to post links. Despite which side of the debate you fall on I think it's important to track how this issue affects the film.

http://www.afterelton.com/2013/02/ask-jt-boycott-enders-game-watch-xena
http://www.afterelton.com/2013/02/superman-orson-scott-card-enders-game
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/02/25/more-shops-pass-on-supermans-adventures-with-orson-scott-card/
http://fluffyman.livejournal.com/194560.html
http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/55002892/enders-game-orson-scott-card-controversy

[Ender Wiggin]

I really need to do some more research on exactly what OSC has said over the years, but from what I've heard it is mostly geared towards homosexuals (his hate anyway.)  That said, I need to look up what words were used, and whether or not it is actual hate or if it's something as simple as being opposed to "gay marriage." 

OSC is an openly religious man, so much so that I have seen him say he would openly try to convert someone to his religion.  At least where I live (Georgia,) a lot of baptists and methodists I know consider marriage to be a religious term.  The word was likely used in legal terms for familiarity, but the recent aversion to religion by the mainstream is a modern occurrence.  Historically religion governed the world and people genuinely believed their religions were true. 

So if OSC is simply stating he is opposed to "gay marriage," he could be looking at it from a religious point of view.  In his mind, it is sin.  It may also be that he simply does not want the word "marriage" be applied to a "civil union."  In all of these cases, I personally have no issue.  He is a human being in the U.S., meaning he is entitled to his opinions and may voice them however he wishes.  While he seems out of place in the modern world, homosexuality has been scorned for centuries.  Even in today's more liberal world, homosexuality is somewhat "taboo."  You need only look at how so many movies and shows fail at making a character homosexual in an organic manner.  It comes off as forced and deliberate.  While I do think more people need to be exposed so that, eventually, it's just another part of life, forcing it down people's throats won't work, and it'll never become a norm of society if it's treated that way.

I need to read up on a lot of OSC interviews from the time of Ender's Game creation to the present.  He could also have changed as a person.  A lot of people change as they grow older, cling more strongly to their religions, and become somewhat disgruntled when the world changes around them.  OSC may be one such person. 

In any case, this is my hypothesis.  I'll make a follow up in the coming days when I've had the time to read through it all formulate a more informed opinion.

I will say that I never got an anti-gay vibe from Ender's Game in particular.  In fact, it seemed to me that Ender and Alai themselves had a sort of 'forbidden love' going on.  That whole 'Salaam' thing, Ender openly showing his feelings to Bean.  None of that is very "manly," even for a young boy. 

[Jason]

     Well, I read OSCs Op-ed on "What Right Is Really At Stake?"  There is a lot one can say about it.  For example, he says
1) he has 'plenty of gay friends who are committed couples.'
2) being gay is a 'sexual dysfunction'
3) 'Heterosexual pair-bonding has been at the heart of human evolution from the time we divided off from the chimps.'
4) ' Normalizing a dysfunction will only make ours into a society that corrodes any loyalty to it, as parents see that our laws and institutions now work against the reproductive success (not to mention happiness) of the next generation.'
5) 'a family in which children grow up with male and female parents to model appropriate gender roles.'

      The nucleus of the article appears to be the label 'marriage.' I think he feels 'marriage' is copyrighted by religion.  I think he could have made that point without interjecting anything else.  The rest (2) - (5) for example were not needed less he thinks there is a link between the two.  Which I think he does. 
     But it is confusing, I think if he continually rubbed 'sexual dysfunction' into his gay friends noses, I imagine it wouldn't take long for him to lose his gay friends.  But certainly writing his opinion in the public domain, regarding homosexuality as a 'sexual dysfunction' is not respectful to his gay friends.  So, either his gay friends are not close friends or they are only friends in his mind.
      In regards to (3): If he is so religiously diehard, I do not know why he excepts human evolution from ape ancestors.  This breaks a common stereotype, but fine, he's ok with it.  He has a right to his opinions.
      I think I can link (4) and (5) together.  Equating marriage with being gay will, in his opinion, drag the religious institution of marriage down with it.  Doing so corrodes our loyalty to society as a result.  And a proper way to raise children is in marriage between a man and a women.  As for my opinion, I'd probably give more weight to his comments if only religion really treated 'marriage' so sacrosanct.  But, does not~50% of all marriages end in divorce.  If the institution of marriage is that important, then why have I not heard about churches not allowing male/female marriages to end.  'Your unhappy together, to bad, you have to stay together.'  But I guess it is ok with God if a man and women got together, spawn a few offspring, only then learning the marriage is only based on sex, in which case, getting a divorce is OK.  Nevermind the litany of potential troubles that children of divorced parents now have to figure out because their parents failed to.  I am not against divorce, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrasy of OSCs position as I see it.
     Look, if one's belief:
allows one to feel God did not create man/woman in one go (Adam/Eve),
lets you support and condemn friends in the same breath,
links 'marriage' with homosexuality as the greatest corrosive agent in society,
makes one happy, then if it makes another one happy to chose a partner of the same sex, then your are right to have that right.  And in the United States, if you have a right to an aspect of personal liberty, it is also LEGAL.  Therefore OSCs picture of what 'marriage' is, is just as LEGAL as that painted by a homosexual.
     I think people like labels because of all of the terms they think everyone knows is linked with it.  Why not just ask that people act responsibly.  If those of strong religious belief really want a term that only applies to them, signifying to the world their moral supremacy.  Then I'm sorry.  The 'marriage' ship has already sailed.  Instead, coin a new term, and dictate its use only in specific religious venues and social circles.  Then I think those religious ilk will not find homosexuals coming after that new term.  All they want is for their feelings/beliefs, no matter how different, to be as valid as anyone else.  If creating a new term sounds preposterous, trying telling that to born again Christians about the 'rapture.'

[Valentine]

I feel like a lot of it has to do with his age and the time he grew up in. If I look at my family, pretty much anyone with gray hair finds the idea of homosexuality as either offensive or one that they balk at. That being said, I find that a bit embarrassing yet I don't hold it against them too much because they haven't grown up with it being such a prevalent topic.

Add to that, they're not online ranting about it on their blogs either. Another issue with OSC is the level of vocality he uses with the issue. I feel like I could accept this a lot easier if he wasn't out there blogging about it or talking about it in interviews.

I agree wholeheartedly that the "sanctity of marriage" is basically a joke when you look at the divorce rates of today. Over the last few generations, somewhere along the way the value of it just degraded and while **I** still value it myself (having been married 10 years last month) I feel like so few couples do today. compared to before.

I find it interesting that when you look at the presidential election and where the two candidates fell on the issue, the country still seems to be split right down the middle on the issue. Yet I don't see comments supporting OSC's views. So is it that these people that feel the same way as him simply stay out of the comment limelight or are they simply not online?

[Valentine]

Hey guys, our latest episode of EnderCast talks entirely about this subject: http://www.endercast.com/2013/03/endercast-episode-5-world/

[enderwiggin]

Another great podcast. Very insightful on this issue, thank you.