Orson Scott Card: Criminalize Homosexual Behavior
In "Nauvoo" Card writes:
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.
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.
Card doesn't simply think that homosexual behavior is sinful - a person can think that without also being homophobic. The problem here is that Card goes quite a bit further. He believes that homosexuality is a threat to heterosexual marriages and heterosexual relationships - probably because he doesn't define "homosexuality" correctly.
A Mormon, Card adopts the evangelical Christian understanding of "homosexuality" which stipulates that it is simply a behavior which can be stopped (like stealing or taking drugs) rather than an orientation which is a fundamental part of who one is. In this latter and accurate understanding of homosexuality, the idea that gays are a threat to straight relationships would be comedic if it weren't so tragic.
In pursuit of the protection of weak-willed straights, Card would have homosexual behavior outlawed and gays tossed in jail if they aren't "discreet," but which Card surely means "in the closet." If they do anything "indiscreet" like hold hands in public or acknowledge their orientation, they can no longer be treated as equal citizens. And this is why Orson Scott Card is a homophobe: is he is afraid of what will happen if gays are allowed to run around in public, honest about who they are and what the feel.
Card would prefer that homosexuality, if it exist at all, remain hidden - either in the closet through the self-repression of gays or in a prison cell through government repression of gays. I don't think that this is the position of someone who simply disapproves of homosexuality but, rather, someone who wants to actively eliminate it because its very existence is problem that merits state intervention. If that isn't enough to qualify as homophobia, I'm not sure what would be.
Read More:
Comments
That Nauvoo article is actually at:
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
And it’s quite creepy.
First off- I’m Bi
Second: I think there are a lot of people out there who deserve to be called Homophobes. Card, while an active member of the opposition, does not.
Yes, he is on the wrong side of the issue. He’s a active part of a religious orthodoxy that doesn’t accept us. He does advocate trying to disuade us from pursuing our lifestyle. Even with laws.
But that doesn’t mean he’s a homophobe.
Homophobes hate us. He doesn’t.
here’s another quote from card:
“I cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself.”
He says tons of other things along those lines, and willingly portrays realistic and sympathetic heterosexuals in his fiction.
I don’t enjoy being called things.
And i’m sure the other side doesn’t enjoy it either
I don’t mind calling a Homophobe a Homophobe- But this was just namecalling.
And if we are ever going to be truly accepted the namecalling has to stop.
Trying to get gays to become straight is not homophobic? Trying to get gays who refuse to be straight to stay in the closet is not homophobic?
You are wrong that being “homophobic” is limited to just hatred. Phobia is also defined as “strong aversion or dislike,” not hatred. By that definition, it’s hard to see how Card isn’t a homophobe. Even if we limit ourselves to just “hatred,” though, I still disagree with you because I don’t think that a person who insists that you must stay in the closet in order to protect the community doesn’t hate you.
You may disagree with me, but you’re definitely wrong to say that “this was just namecalling.” I gave detailed reasons I think Card is a homophobe. I may be wrong in my conclusion, but I offer a whole lot more than just that conclusion. If you can’t see that, then you didn’t read very closely.
I stand by my conclusion, by the way. What you offer doesn’t appear to me to be much more than the tired old canard of “hate the sin but love the sinner,” something that’s used to excuse doing and saying all sorts of things which would be clearly recognized as hatred in any other context.
The “love” of such people is something the world would be much better off without.
Sexual orientation is a moot point. It’s either missionary sexual activity or no sexual activity. To be just to the people who are against homosexual&lesbian behaviors, passing laws against these behaviors is synonymous to having laws against drug use.
Now people will do things as tehy see fit & if 2 willful & knowing adults engage in it, well that’s what they’ll do & in the U.S., it’s legal. However, I don’t have a problem if society decides to pass laws against homo&lesbian activities. I’m n/i in discussing sexual orientation. Behavior not orientation is what people are punished for. It’s about preventing H&L behaviors even if orientation doesn’t change.
Why?
To be just to the people who are against homophobic attitudes, passing laws against expressing anti-gay attitudes is synonymous to having laws against drug use. Schools, of course, will have to have classes teaching that homophobic ideas are dangerous just like they have lessons against smoking.
Do you have a problem if society decides to pass laws against expressing anti-gay views?
Punishing expression doesn’t punish thought - you’d still free to think anti-gay things, just not allowed to express them, not even in your own home. That’s OK, right?
My gaydar says Card’s gay.
I don’t know for myself for sure if Card can be considered a homophobe. I don’t believe I’ve read enough of his views on the subject to be able to accurately state in either direction. I will say that I have read more to believe that he is not homphobic, but then I am more sympathetic toward Card’s views then is the original writer.
I actually do not think that the original writer can say that he has read enough of Card’s views on the subject to be able to accurately state in either direction as well. He stated only quotes that confirmed his viewpoint and, if he posted a comment to another persons comment here, he utterly ignores quotes that could disprove his theory.
I feel though that the point should not be whether or not Card is homophobic, but whether it is a good idea to post laws against homosexual/lesbian interactions and marriages. Now, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so yes I do firmly believe that it is a sin to have sex with anyone that is not your legal and lawful spouse under God. Does that mean we should pass laws banning unlawful sex, including homosexuality? Here I actually disagree with what Card is apparently suggesting. I feel that if we were to truly live the gospel as Jesus and Heavenly Father wants us to we would only have laws and statutes that promote heterosexuality and fedelity and that our lawmakers and governors say everything that promotes righteous living and then try their best to live up to that, admiting when they do wrong, never hiding behind the common and lazy minded “it’s all relative” phrase. We, as human beings must strive to overcome the evil human tendency toward bigotry. (Of which I myself know could be accused of on some occassions. Perhaps even now?) These are not easy paths to take, but I feel they are better, more nobel causes to uptake than to try to force under laws. Homosexuality is not something that can be willed away. Now some people probably have, just like there are those who have willed them selves into stop smoking or drinking alchohol, but it certainly isn’t a route that can be expected of everyone. I don’t believe that and neither do the leaders of the LDS Church (for more information go to lds.org and look in the Media section I believe or search for homosexuality). Yes, hate the sin but love the sinner, but does that mean what most people have made it out to be. I submit that no is the correct answer there. Hate the sin by never condoning the wrong action, by always displaying and promoting the right course. Love the sinner by letting them choose their own course. Either let them take their freedom away on their own or to keep all their freedom by the choices they make after you have let them know your feelings on what matters and what you know the gospel contains.
Oh my. I am an american soldier and a lesbian. I have every novel in the Ender series and find Scott’s creative verbosity mesmerizing. I am so disapointed to hear this about one of my heros. His novels have set a grand example for young leaders. At least he doesn’t try to write these views into his books where young future homosexuals might read them. Such a shame he’s not on our team.
Eh, you probably won’t see this, three years later, but:
Card’s problem is that he understands homosexuality as a behavior rather than an orientation. He does not believe that there are homosexual people, only people who have a genetic predisposition to engage in homosexual acts. He believes that those desires should repressed, just like desires for fornication with the opposite sex, until one is married in a child-producing marriage.
Then he goes on to complain that those who openly advocate the homosexual “lifestyle” are instilling sin.
There are two huge mistakes there; the first being the lack of understanding of homosexuality as a part of oneself rather than an act, and the second being the appeal to religious authority to make his arguments. He responds to his essay at Nauvoo by mentioning that those who do not accept the words of the Lord and Prophets as true cannot understand his arguments. Which is true and which makes his arguments as watertight as a sieve.
People who are aginist homosexuality for religious reasons can be frendly to gay people. I know from experience.
After having read Scott Card’s essay as well as the responses he gave to people, one would be rather confused as to what he thinks. However, in some ways I can try to decipher a little.
First of all: Homophobia as defined by the dictionary (here it’s dictionary.com) as “The fear or hatred of homosexuals.” Unfortunately, how that fear comes out can always be left up for grabs. I do believe that Scott Card does send out some homophobic things in his essay, but to be honest, a lot of the essay is just something I can’t agree with.
First of all, when we talk about our freedom of religion does that not mean we can’t have freedom from it? Simply put, if I have no belief in God or His teachings, then should I be forced to obey something because something I don’t believe in says so? If I don’t believe in God or his teachings then using the argument of religion as a way to say, “Don’t accept homosexuals (or homosexuality),” is almost an empty argument.
This country was not built on the ideas of religion. That’s a myth. Our founding fathers were a collection of Atheists, Christians, Agnostics and most of them were in fact, Deist. When we say “Separation of Church and State,” we do mean that its just a little unfair to deny citizens in this country a right just because it does not agree with your own religion. What about religions that DO condone homosexuality? Or the religions that do accept it as not being sinful?
Even more so, what about other sins that are legal? Drinking is legal, and it’s sin to drink. It is a sin to wear clothing made from two different animals and yet no one is thrown in jail for doing that, nor is there a law against that.
However, Card is condemning the behavior, not the homosexual, and that’s exactly what I find quite disturbing. It is okay to be a homosexual as long as you do not partake in homosexual acts? It’s okay to partake in homosexual acts before you’re an adult, though? I thought God’s Word applied to everyone. If the Lord has no room for tolerance (as expressed in Card’s essay) then someone who is not an adult shouldn’t be able to get away with it either, don’t you think? Yet in Card’s essay he says that “sexual experimentation is okay for an adolescent”. I don’t understand that entirely because that also says that premarital sex (as long as it’s before you’re eighteen years old) is okay. That’s rather confusing.
Moving on, however, what strikes me as odd is how Card can condemn homosexual behavior and that we should have laws against it and even describes it as the downfall of society. Okay, there have been a multitude of societies that have fallen in the past but these societies did not fall because of one little act. Rome did not fall because they embraced sexuality (including homosexuality). Society eventually falls because of social unrest. In other words: Society tears itself apart or is conquered.
However, I find it morally wrong, even for those who say for religious reasons, to deny someone anything just because they are homosexual. But it also seems hypocritical to say, “You can have this right as a homosexual as long as you don’t practice homosexual behavior.” That doesn’t make any sense. Sexual oppression and sexual repression are not exactly good and healthy things. Regardless of whether or not you think homosexuality is wrong (and by wrong we know most of you mean, immoral), this country is built on the basis of freedom for everyone. Not built on the basis of heterosexuality.
You don’t have to accept it or agree with it, but it seems wrong that we live in a country where two guys walking around with a gun ready to rob a bank is less of a threat than two guys holding hands.
I, also, understand how VERY VERY old this article is. But I feel the need to comment anyway.
I think that many people here (including the author) have taken the comments made by Card in the Article WAY out of context.
This was an article posted on an LDS website, TO LDS members. Most specifically, to the hypocrites who feel they can be both LDS and homosexual.
Yes, he does make references to laws in modern society, but the entire article is absolutely, SPECIALLY about Mormon laws/standards and those that feel they can brake them and still call themselves Latter Day Saints. How anyone can read the article and get something different out of it, is honestly, beyond me.
“…he is afraid of what will happen if gays are allowed to run around in public”
The “public” he’s speaking of is the CHURCH public, not the general public. (to be clear and more specific, the LDS church public… not other churches or other bodies people).
You quote two paragraphs that by themselves seem to be speaking to the general public. When actually taken in context with the rest of the article, it is QUITE apparent he’s speaking to the church, and to those homosexuals who attempt to call themselves members of it.
Polity, in this context, is talking about the church leadership, and the community refers to the church body. He’s in NO way making reference to United States laws, polices, or the general American public in these comments. Again, how someone can read the article and assume so is quite beyond me, almost to the point that it seems this author’s intent is to stir debate and sling mud at Card to gain traction in their own endeavors.
Whatever the case, I hope others who visit this article will actually READ Card’s essay, and not just run with the two paragraphs quoted here, taken out of context.
Dispointed Patriot, please don’t feel this way. Card is still a worthy hero. He simply expressed the rights of his religion to allow/disallow actions made by it’s members that don’t follow it’s believes/creeds/standards, and is in no way trying to force anything on the general populous of America, nor does he hate anyone who is gay.
I feel like someone desperate to have people listen to reason, when there is no audience. Hopefully this will reach others who stumble upon this dated article.
So it seems Mr. Orson Scott Card isn’t exactly comfortable with the idea of homosexuality being an openly accepted aspect of normal human nature and likes to bounce around between the veil of democractic values and strong religous backgrounds though..we have to remember..the dude’s a science fiction writer.
Okay so his books aren’t filled with ghastly homophobic subplots or characters,racisim,xenophobia(not including plot elements involving warfare with alien races),or obvious right wing politics,but remember..he’s just that,a writer of fiction: not a politican, not a religous leader, not a influencial industrialist shaping our society from behind the curtains.
As much as I’m sure alot of people have a pit of venomous contempt for Mr. Card’s views and opinions..but he’s just voicing those thoughts. I strongly doubt he’s got enough of a social/political influence to cause homosexuality in the United States to become something to be criminalized,controled,repressed or possibility eliminated by goverment approved methods.
It’s a load of hot air everyone,relax,go home,and if you want you’re welcome to burn your copies of Ender’s Game and Speaker For the Dead.
For the love of Mike, people, how can a person who advocates CRIMINALIZING homosexual behavior because it endangers heterosexual marriage (and all of civilization, if you read his whole tirade) possibly NOT be a homophobe? If endorsing state-sponsored gay bashing does not qualify as homophobia, I can’t freaking imagine what would.
‘I, also, understand how VERY VERY old this article is. But I feel the need to comment anyway.
I think that many people here (including the author) have taken the comments made by Card in the Article WAY out of context. ‘
How exactly? He thinks being openly gay should be punishable by law, I don’t really see how you can say that and not be a homophobe.
‘This was an article posted on an LDS website, TO LDS members. Most specifically, to the hypocrites who feel they can be both LDS and homosexual.’
So LDS is also homophobic? Lets be clear here, if you insist that someone can’t be part of your group, because of their sexual orientation, that IS a phobia. You’re implying that they are somehow morally inferior because of what they’re doing. Because there is nothing immoral about homosexuality (if you disagree please provide reasons as to why) the only reason for such an opinion is bigotry.
‘Yes, he does make references to laws in modern society, but the entire article is absolutely, SPECIALLY about Mormon laws/standards and those that feel they can brake them and still call themselves Latter Day Saints. How anyone can read the article and get something different out of it, is honestly, beyond me.’
What ’something different’ exactly have we gotten? As many on this comments list have said, if you think that open homosexuality is immoral (as Card certainly does seeing that he’s promoting its criminalisation) you can’t honestly say you hold no disdain for such an action, and thus, the people who perpetrate it. What if someone were to say something like
‘ Laws against christian 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 religious behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.’
Would you say that’s not discriminatory just becuase its addressed specifically to fellow members of an estabalishment such as LDS?
‘The “public” he’s speaking of is the CHURCH public, not the general public. (to be clear and more specific, the LDS church public… not other churches or other bodies people).
You quote two paragraphs that by themselves seem to be speaking to the general public. When actually taken in context with the rest of the article, it is QUITE apparent he’s speaking to the church, and to those homosexuals who attempt to call themselves members of it.’
Care to provide any evidence of that? Regardless, even if this is so, he’s still a homophobe for promoting church bigotry against gays.
‘Dispointed Patriot, please don’t feel this way. Card is still a worthy hero.’
You think homophobia is worthy?
‘He simply expressed the rights of his religion to allow/disallow actions made by it’s members that don’t follow it’s believes/creeds/standards, and is in no way trying to force anything on the general populous of America,’
Technically in America I would have the right to hold pro-nazi meetings where I denounced jews and blacks as genetically inferior, that doesn’t make it ok though does it? If you don’t want to be criticised for having bigotted opinions, then don’t voice them.
‘nor does he hate anyone who is gay.’
His beliefs indicate otherwise.
Merriam-Webster, the dictionary I always use (It’s good to keep a standard for argument sake)states that homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. I believe Mr. Card qualifies with the third part.
That being said, I must agree with him insofar as being gay and LDS. I personally don’t see how someone can be something (such as gay) that totally contradicts the doctrine of the church they belong to. I would not stay at a place where I was not welcome. Hate the sin - love the sinner is just a way to control the parishioners who would otherwise muck up their religion.
Although I am against religion, I applaud those who have broken free from the oppressive chains of their church and formed other churches that more freely welcome them. That, however, is another can of worms I will save for another day.
I would like to (respectfully) disagree with the comment that Orson Scott Card is just a writer and is therefore not influential. I haven’t read his work - since having children I have had very little time to read any fiction - but he is extremely well known in science fiction circles. Writers have often exerted very powerful influences on the world. Abraham Lincoln himself gave much of the credit for the Civil War to the shock inspired by Harriet Tubman’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, and the environmental movement - which has finally gained some of the credibility it deserves given the weight of the evidence - was essentially spawned by Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. We live in an era of mass communication, though I’m afraid that the younger generation is mostly neglecting the written word for more visual media. There is power in communication, the power to move people to action and shape their feelings and voting behavior. (And don’t dismiss him because he writes science fiction - surveys have shown for decades that readers of science fiction average higher IQ than readers of any other genre - though that went down after Star Wars - which means he is communicating to the people who are most likely to go to the polls.)