YA Librarians Honor Homophobe Writer, Stir Hornet's Nest

[JamesSavik]

I stand by Mr. Card and his writings. SO SHOULD YOU.

I respectfully disagree with highly respected raccoon.

I hate Mormons because they hate me. I know because the real life person that inspired Rainer in Broken told me so.

If you are gay, Mormons will hurt you in any way they can while smiling to your face.

In their twisted faith, if they punish you enough, you'll come to your senses and decide NOT to be a homosexual.

They are terrorists and if you turn your back on them you are a fool.

Never allow yourself in a position where a Mormon has power over you or you will regret it.

That's why Mitt Romney scares the living hell out of me.

Utah, home of the Mormons, is full of street kids who were thrown out of perfect Mormon families.

[blue]

There are good and bad in any group. There are also gay Mormons. We likely have members who are or have friends/family who are Mormons.

Please, let's not paint a whole group that way.

I think it's important to ask ourselves if gay rights are the only issue of importance to us, and to ask if we have formed an "us versus them" mentality.

Oh, I'm just as prone. I volunteer a part of almost every day to help at more than one gay-friendly site, though they might say they are more than just gay-friendly. When I hear negative comments about being gay, it makes me feel left out, or at least, not so much like getting to know that person more. So perhaps it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd just like us to examine our thoughts, before we wander off into excluding reactions.

[Insomniac]

I respectfully disagree with highly respected raccoon.

I hate Mormons because they hate me. I know because the real life person that inspired Rainer in Broken told me so.

If you are gay, Mormons will hurt you in any way they can while smiling to your face.

In their twisted faith, if they punish you enough, you'll come to your senses and decide NOT to be a homosexual.

They are terrorists and if you turn your back on them you are a fool.

Never allow yourself in a position where a Mormon has power over you or you will regret it.

That's why Mitt Romney scares the living hell out of me.

Utah, home of the Mormons, is full of street kids who were thrown out of perfect Mormon families.

I hate to hijack the thread, but I don't think you should choose which candidate you vote for in this election based on them either being pro or anti-gay rights. McCain and Romney both have religious backgrounds, but the gay rights movement has too much foward momentum to be affected in any negative manner. We may see a stalemate for a few years, but I'd rather put that all aside for awhile then have either Hitlery or "Osama" Obama take the White House. Obama has no political background what-so-ever and I feel like he'll become another "Cadillac" Devalt Patrick and win the election based on the color of his skin and then try and screw up the country with illogical and assbackwards proposals. Hillary is just plain evil and has too many political connections for her own good and I can see her making some massive and abrupt changes where they should be gradual. I also don't believe she is as pro-gay as some might like to believe. I would much rather have a conservative Rebulican in the White House for the next 4 or even 8 years then to have some extreme liberal take office and lead us to hell in a handbasket. IMHO (and only my opinion) Sometimes we need to think of the greater good and not vote based on selfish personal wants. As much as I'd like to see every gay in America be able to get married, share rights, and serve openly in the military I could stand to wait a few years for that to happen worst case. Just something to think about.

[Cole Parker]

Utah, home of the Mormons, is full of street kids who were thrown out of perfect Mormon families.

While sounding like an absurd claim, it is very true that many, many young Mormon boys were forced from their homes in Utah. In the arch-conservative branch of Mormon, the elders control the lives of the young, and they decide which girls go to which men, and young boys, gay or straight, are a threat to their having all the girls they want. So, they got expelled from the clan, kicked out, thrown out physically, left by the side of the road in many cases. This sounds like nonsense, like a story. It wasn't. Or at least wasn't so until a year or so ago when their leader finally, finally, got arrested. Since that time, this branch of the chruch as been taken over by leagl authorities. I haven't seen the outcome of the changes that have certainly occurred since. I hope no more youth are being disenfranchised, and ones that were have been taken back into their familes. Knowing the attitudes of the elders, I doubt that has happened.

I never want to rebuke an entire group of people for the actions of some. I have known some very fine Mormons, some exceptionally fine individuals. I think it's always a mistake to look at a group and see it as a whole. It can be tempting to do that, but it is wrong. I have to keep telling myself that when it comes to some groups.

C

[Insomniac]

While sounding like an absurd claim, it is very true that many, many young Mormon boys were forced from their homes in Utah. In the arch-conservative branch of Mormon, the elders control the lives of the young, and they decide which girls go to which men, and young boys, gay or straight, are a threat to their having all the girls they want. So, they got expelled from the clan, kicked out, thrown out physically, left by the side of the road in many cases. This sounds like nonsense, like a story. It wasn't. Or at least wasn't so until a year or so ago when their leader finally, finally, got arrested. Since that time, this branch of the chruch as been taken over by leagl authorities. I haven't seen the outcome of the changes that have certainly occurred since. I hope no more youth are being disenfranchised, and ones that were have been taken back into their familes. Knowing the attitudes of the elders, I doubt that has happened.

I never want to rebuke an entire group of people for the actions of some. I have known some very fine Mormons, some exceptionally fine individuals. I think it's always a mistake to look at a group and see it as a whole. It can be tempting to do that, but it is wrong. I have to keep telling myself that when it comes to some groups.

C

I didn't realise this was true until me and a couple friends were watching the movie Latter Days. Turns out one of my friends was Mormon and his parents got a divorce over his coming out and his mom went nuts over it (tried to kill herself and all). He said he slept for almost a year with a large knife under his pillow incase they would try and take him during the night and put him in one of those correctional facilities. I can't see how Romney's being Mormon would affect his as president though.

[JamesSavik]

I can't see how Romney's being Mormon would affect his as president though.

Let's put it this way: would you expect a Jew to vote for a respectable Nazi?

How about a sheep voting for a wolf in a $700 suit?

[colinian]

...I don't think you should choose which candidate you vote for in this election based on them either being pro or anti-gay rights.

Well, since you've hijacked it let me but in on the hijacking.

I disagree about choosing which candidate I vote for based on them being pro- or anti-gay rights, I think this is one of the important considerations. We've had 8 years of an administration that's anti-gay rights, preceded by a Congress that was anti-gay rights during the Clinton administration. Attempts to ban not just gay marriage but gay domestic partnerships are on the agenda of some of the candidates running in the primaries. If they were to get into office, things could get very ugly for those of us who are gay, in my opinion.

Colin

[Insomniac]

Well, since you've hijacked it let me but in on the hijacking.

I disagree about choosing which candidate I vote for based on them being pro- or anti-gay rights, I think this is one of the important considerations. We've had 8 years of an administration that's anti-gay rights, preceded by a Congress that was anti-gay rights during the Clinton administration. Attempts to ban not just gay marriage but gay domestic partnerships are on the agenda of some of the candidates running in the primaries. If they were to get into office, things could get very ugly for those of us who are gay, in my opinion.

Colin

The Gay Rights 'Movement' has too much steam to be made to take any steps back. It could possibly not make any advancements, but that is worst case. There's nothing saying that voting for a candidate that has a pro or nuetral gay agenda will see any results either. At least voting for someone becuase of their gay rights stance is better than voting for someone because they're a 'Woman' or becuase they are 'Black'. I swear the next time I hear someone say one of the two latter comments I'm going to slap them and walk away saying nothing further.

[JamesSavik]

The Gay Rights 'Movement' has too much steam to be made to take any steps back. It could possibly not make any advancements, but that is worst case.

The Gay Rights Movement is actually paper thin. As much ground as we have covered, we have very little in the way of laws on the books to show for it: ZERO at the national level, darned few at the state level and a patchwork of city ordinances. Many of those state and local laws face routine attacks by those who would see them overturned.

Should we face a well organized and funded coordinated attack, we could see the loss of everthing that has been won so far.

[Insomniac]

The Gay Rights Movement is actually paper thin. As much ground as we have covered, we have very little in the way of laws on the books to show for it: ZERO at the national level, darned few at the state level and a patchwork of city ordinances. Many of those state and local laws face routine attacks by those who would see them overturned.

Should we face a well organized and funded coordinated attack, we could see the loss of everthing that has been won so far.

Nothing says that any pro-gay candidate will do anything for us either, they could just as well hurt us also. To me it is just not worth it. This is also why each of us has the right to an individual vote. I also don't think the government could strip us of everything we've earned so far without serious backlash. Think Stonewall riots, but on a much, much larger scale. There are also way too many non-gay supporters that wouldn't let this happen either. I also live in one of the most liberal states in the country and Gay Marriage is legal here, so what I see in terms of rights may be totally different from what someone else in the country may see.

[JamesSavik]

I also live in one of the most liberal states in the country and Gay Marriage is legal here, so what I see in terms of rights may be totally different from what someone else in the country may see.

I live in Mississippi- untra-conservative heart of the bible belt. In short, we are America's Iran. A place where you can lose you job for publically supporting Civil Unions. Trust me I know- it happened to me. I went from having excellent performance evals to a serious attitude problem at super-sonic speed.

Gay people have NOTHING in Mississippi. No protections. No laws. A state constutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. A culture that damns us. If cops and judges aren't outwardly bigoted, they are damn sure biased.

We aren't SAFE. We probably won't be in my lifetime. We only have the rights that we can hire a lawyer and enforce. We don't have tons of allies who think its cool to be gay friendly.

I don't begrudge you what you have. Just don't blame me for wanting it.

[Insomniac]

I live in Mississippi- untra-conservative heart of the bible belt. In short, we are America's Iran. A place where you can lose you job for publically supporting Civil Unions. Trust me I know- it happened to me. I went from having excellent performance evals to a serious attitude problem at super-sonic speed.

Gay people have NOTHING in Mississippi. No protections. No laws. A state constutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. A culture that damns us. If cops and judges aren't outwardly bigoted, they are damn sure biased.

We aren't SAFE. We probably won't be in my lifetime. We only have the rights that we can hire a lawyer and enforce. We don't have tons of allies who think its cool to be gay friendly.

I don't begrudge you what you have. Just don't blame me for wanting it.

Only as long as you don't blame me for not being able to understand. I'm not very open, though most of my family and freinds know about me and know my BF, and I can honestly say that I've never experienced one incident of prejudice. Maybe becuase of where I live, or maybe it's because I don't exactly look like victim material. It's hard to imagine that one part of the country can be so advanced on the issue and others are still in the Stone Age.

[Trab]

"that one part of the country can be so advanced on the issue and others are still in the Stone Age."

The problem is more that of personal biases being perpetuated regionally by those in a position to do this. From what I've seen, generally, the less populated an area is, the less the residents encounter people who are different, and therefore are more able to successfully persecute those minorities (if they want to do this). In the larger urban areas the sheer numbers of people with variations gives everyone more opportunity to see and understand each other and problems of discrimination become less. I can also recognize that this is not a universal situation, and also that extremely small minorities might not be persecuted at all, being so much in the minority that it is not even worth the time to foment hatred or fear against them.

I truly don't understand any of it though. Unless someone actively interferes with you, in some kind of attack, blatant or subtle, there is no reason to treat them with anything but open acceptance as a fellow human being. It never ceases to astound me how many feel it necessary to put down others for even the most insignificant differences. Even within minorities there is discrimination based on even further breakdowns on ever more minor differences. It's almost like there is some kind of racial (human race) imperative driving us to these kinds of territorial and divisive actions.

[blue]

People are people. They have instincts for dominance and for protecting themselves and their group against any threats. Whether that's the saber-toothed tiger in the cave, or the mysterious disease, or bad food, or that crazy caveman from the other tribe, or the nutty or mean or foolish caveman in our very own cave, people have those instincts. They are still there, as educated and civilized as we might or might not be. -- No, of course, that doesn't excuse acting for what's right instead of what's coming from old fears of the unknown.

-----

Gay rights aren't my most primary concern, and certainly not the only thing I think about, but they are important and I want gay rights. I don't want to be tolerated. I want to be accepted. If I have a partner, I want him to be accepted too. If I had a gay son or daughter, I'd want him or her to be accepted and to find love instead of intolerance, and certainly not hate and self-hate.

Yet I will compromise, because it will let me reach goals and do what I need to live life now. If I stick by my principles on what must be, and compromise on what has wiggle room, it's fine. -- Compromise and negotiation seem to be a lost art, lately.

[DesDownunder]

At the risk of appearing to hijack the thread, I think it is important to look at the political situation from as wide a perspective of possible.

As I have stated before, persecution can be dated back to our evolutionary periods of mistrust of anyone who is not from the same "cave."

In psychological terms I think that means if I perceive you as different from me I must depose you in what ever way I can. Ten thousand years of civilisation has meant a degree of willingness to trust differences in our fellow human beings, but only up to a point.

In historical terms civilised tolerance is just becoming acceptable; civilised acceptance is just beginning to be tolerated.

Belief systems are still imposed on people within small and even large communities, through a number of means.

One of these is political, another is economic and of course the oldest are probably religion and fear. Any of these are used to depose "outsiders."

All of these have come to us, excogitated by various individuals adopted by a community in some form to make a populace conform.

Yet no matter how much we may personally agree or disagree with them or even want them to be accepted or denied, their is always a danger that truth or manipulation, may lurk within them.

Now how does that affect our present situation as a somewhat ostracized group being asked to vote on a democratic representative in the current world communities.

I will not venture an opinion on the Us parties. The candidates all seem to be opportunistic as most politicians tend to be, but some seem less answerable to the party line than others.

Here in Australia, where I can voice opinions and hopefully provide example of my own standpoint, we were faced with a similar array of parties and individuals in our recent Federal Elections.

I listened and read to as many of the statements coming from the parties and candidates as I possibly could.

I listened to, and consulted with, other Australians and looked at the broader world issues that might be affected by whom we elected.

At the end of the day I came to these conclusions.

I could not vote for any party that stood for something I was morally against. (For example, the death penalty).

I could not vote for an individual who was adamantly campaigning for laws that I thought were inhuman or detrimental to the community as whole. (Such as law and order issues being promoted as an execution of vengeance rather than rehabilitation.)

I could not vote for a party or individual candidate who sought to confine access to knowledge or limit individual freedom of expression and speech.

There are other guiding principles, but I hope these show the approach I was using to come to a very difficult decision.

The over riding factor here was and must be for me, that I cannot vote for a party or individual candidate that might go along with the idea of limiting a person's liberty by virtue of their individual traits, whether chosen or connatural. The only provision is that the trait must not be predatory.

No candidate who espoused the idea that any means justifies an end, could thus expect my vote.

After a process of elimination I was left with one minor party and candidates from that party who fell within my guiding principles.

Of course the above means that I could not vote for someone who stood against gay issues, or who chose to deny our rightful existence.

The interesting thing here is that when I started to vote 45 years ago, I could not have applied these principles with any hope of finding a candidate openly standing on such issues. The fact that this time around I did find such people has given me some hope for the future.

That hope would not have been served by only voting for those candidates I was trained to vote for, given my community background.

The truly remarkable thing is that this party increased its small number of representatives in our Australian Senate.

Times are a'changing.

Now who amongst us wants to write a truly liberating political gay novel?

[Hylas]

Everything we fought for can be undone in days by the wrong president. And the US is not the only one that will be affected.

[Tanuki Racoon]

I said some nice things about OSC in this thread some time ago. I defended him. I withdraw all such comments.

Orson's own words in the Mormon Times article of a few days ago clinches it: http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586

Pig.

[The Pecman]

I saw that, too, and I'm completely dismayed. Card has tried to explain in past interviews that he's not homophobic in that he doesn't preach violence against gays.

But now he's saying that if our government sanctions gay marriage and equal rights for gay people, we should overthrow the government.

Card's completely gone off the deep end. It baffles me how someone who's a devout Mormon -- a group that was founded in order to get religious freedom and to avoid persecution from others -- can be so hateful and bigoted.