<-My Fucked-Up Sleeping Schedule |Main|An Open Letter to Tim Kring, Creator and Executive Producer of Heroes->

"The Hypocrites of Homosexuality"

September 19, 2007 4:56 AM

ne of my favorite books is Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. Although it's ostensively a science-fiction book, it's one of the few pieces of writing that I think truly transcends that genre. Anyone--sci-fi geek or otherwise--would enjoy that book.

Although I've known that Mr. Card is a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for some time, I hadn't really cared too much. Then today, for some reason, I wandered over to his Wikipedia page, and found a link to an article he wrote called "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality." In it, Mr. Card discusses his--and the Mormon Church's--belief that homosexuality is a sin. But, while Mr. Card is free to have these beliefs, and while the Mormon Church is free to determine what conduct is and is not appropriate under its own moral rubric, Mr. Card goes further:

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 who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
This statement seriously calls into question Mr. Card's claim that he is neither a homophobe nor a bigot.

There is a distinction, I think, between believing in a religion that considers certain activities or beliefs sinful and advocating for the criminalization of those activities or beliefs. One can believe, as Mr. Card claims to, that the sinful nature of homosexuality does not justify violence and not be a bigot. Such a belief essentially means that, while an individual is in some way marked by a certain religious group, that mark does not justify negative treatment by people outside the group like, for example, the government. Although the merits of such an opinion might be debated, the holder of the opinion is not clearly a bigot.

But Mr. Card goes further: he claims that the government--an entity outside of the Mormon Church--should regulate homosexual conduct with the aim of imposing his moral views on those that behave inappropriately. In fact, he claims that such individuals should not be accepted as equal citizens. In other words, Mr. Card believes that, because of his personal moral views, some segment of society should be devalued not only by his own religion, but by society at large. This is--in addition to logically unsupportable--bigotry.

Mr. Card continues:

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. 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.

Mr. Card therefore supports nothing less than the complete subjugation of gay people. He would have them deny themselves in public so that children might not be scarred by seeing a family with two fathers or two mothers.

In a word, Mr. Card's beliefs, regardless of how intelligently he articulates them or how frequently he claims they are not intolerant, are repugnant.

I've never been one to stop enjoying an artist's work because of the artist's flaws, but it's just sad to think that the same man who brought us Ender, Valentine, Bean, and Petra could bring us such filth.



6 Comments


TheExpat said:

Funny he should be a sci-fi writer. The Mormon mythology itself is very much like a science fiction novel, what with all the different planets and their thing with the race wars being some sort of cosmic battle as well.

What's this he says about marriage being supported by the polity? What ever happened to marriage being supported by the people who got married? Aren't they the ones that are supposed to protect its sanctity and not some big brother-figure?

September 19, 2007 6:49 PM



Vice said:

This is another example of why I go out of my way to avoid learning about the real life details of actors, musicians, writers -- anyone in the entertainment industry. I don't care what these people do or say outside of their mediums. Because, as with most people, if you listen to what they really have to say, you will almost certainly find yourself hating them, and it will ruin any piece of entertainment they put out in the future. I love Ender's Game. I thought he made a great statement about war and humanity. If I ever get around to reading the others, I'm sure they'll be just as deep and meaningful. (I also respect the fact that Card said he never wants it made into a movie unless it is as good as Serenity, which is one of my favorite movies ever.) But he's clearly a homophobe who cares little for personal freedom if he thinks that the government ought to regulate the private lives of citizens based on what a minority of people (himself included, of course) in this country actually believe. The classic "This is what I believe, and the government should make it so" approach to democracy.

Still, I'll read Card's literary work, despite his homophobia, just like I'll still watch Tom Cruise's movies, despite the whole Lord Xenu thing, and I'll still listen to Michael Jackson's old songs, no matter how many children he molests. I just wish celebrities would stick to their entertainment, and people would stop caring what they do elsewhere. They're just people, and people are generally fucked up.

September 19, 2007 9:39 PM



Vice said:

On second thought, Michael Jackson may not have been the best example to include. I suppose people ought to care if he molests children. I didn't mean to sound in any way like I support the molestation of children.

A better example may have been Bono. I don't care what Bono has to say in front of the United Nations. I hate the fact that Bono gets to speak in front of the U.N. He's a singer, for the love of God. So, no matter what Bono has to say to the U.N., I still won't listen to U2. That's better.

September 19, 2007 9:42 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Mr. Expat,
Are the Mormon beliefs really any stranger than those of other religions?

Mr. Vice,
I think that Michael Jackson is a great example. Of course no one supports his alleged child molestation, but the fact of the matter is that he released some of the best songs ever. "Thriller," "Smooth Criminal," and a bunch of others are just amazing songs. The fact that he's a crazy fuck just doesn't take away from that.

Britney Spears is another example. Her latter-day transgressions don't change the fact that some of her songs were great pop music, although I don't really like them.

September 21, 2007 7:14 AM



Wade Garrett said:

I'm not religious at all, but whenever I hear somebody dismiss the Church of Latter-Day Saints because their beliefs are too weird, I get a little weirded out. "Faith" is a synonym of religion because what we believe isn't supposed to 'make sense' or be 'logical and supported by proven facts!' You're supposed to take it on faith!

Personally, I believe that holy books in general contain largely superstitious nonsense, though most of them also contain a lot of stories about how we can live better. Certainly the Bible/Torah is that way. I've never read the Book of Mormon or the other Mormon religious texts, but I would imagine they are much the same way.

September 21, 2007 9:56 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

I generally agree with everything you said, Mr. Garrett. I have to say, though, that I completey draw the line at Scientology. Their beliefs are just fucking stupid, and they were clearly invented by some failed sci-fi writer who wanted to make a quick buck.

September 21, 2007 10:57 AM



Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.