Robot 6

Dallas retailer won’t carry Orson Scott Card’s Superman comic

Adventures of Superman #1

As the calls grow for DC Comics to drop Ender’s Game author and outspoken gay-rights opponent Orson Scott Card from its digital-first Adventures of Superman, the first retailer has stepped forward to say he won’t order the print edition of the new anthology.

“Zeus Comics will not be carrying the print edition of writer Orson Scott Card’s Superman,” Richard Neal, owner of the Dallas store, wrote this afternoon on his Facebook page. “Card sits on the board of the National Organization of Marriage which fights against marriage equality. His essays advocate the destruction of my relationship, that I am born of rape or abuse and that I am equated with pedophilia. These themes appear in his fiction as well. It is shocking DC Comics would hire him to write Superman, a character whose ideals represent all of us.”

He continued, “If you replaced the word ‘homosexuals’ in his essays with the words ‘women’ or ‘Jews,’ he would not be hired. But I’m not sure why its still okay to ‘have an opinion’ about gays? This is about equality.”

Zeus Comics was the recipient of the 2006 Will Eisner Spirit of Comics Retailer Award, presented to a store “that has done an outstanding job of supporting the comic art medium both in the community and within the industry at large.”

Adventures of Superman debuts online April 29 and in print May 29.

News From Our Partners

Comments

102 Comments

i dont on any level see the harm in gay marriage, i dont have any problem with gays at all. but the comparions to pedophilia are not unfounded, homosexuality does absolutly No harm in comparison, however both are 100% unatural. dress it up with what ever “i was born this way” stuff you wish (and i dont disagree that some are born as such mentaly) the simple pure fact is the same genders are NOT phisicaly compatiable. nature or god (whatever you beleive in) did not create us to be compatible with each other, there for it is unatural. end of story.

and again i have ZERO problem with Gay Marriage, but sense when is it a HUMAN right to marriage? isnt that the right of whatever religion created it? im honestly asking i dont know.

Stupid is as stupid does. I love the crazy left and all of the social “stands” they make. It’s a hoot.

I applaud and support Zeus for taking a stand, good on them! I’m a fan of theirs and my appreciation grows daily.

James, please do some research. Homosexuality is perfectly natural and is found in a wide number of species on this planet. End of story.

Shadowpdf, you are so right! How dare those crazy lefties take principled stands on issues they believe in. The every nerve! Such a hoot!

Generally the issue is more about having the same federal/state rights as straight couples do, rather than having a religion support gay marriage.

You can choose to participate in a religion or not, but you can’t choose whether to participate in our nation’s government, and therefore gay couples should have the same right to marry as straight couples do.

It’s funny how “tolerant” the left is until you disagree with them. When a majority of the comics industry is Liberal and is open about their biases, along comes someone who has a difference of opinion, and suddenly they are to be boycotted and smited.
So Liberals can take “principled stands, but we on the right cannot?
I’ll take Hypocrisy for $1000 Alex.

po1america, isn’t the idea of a businessman deciding for himself what products he will, or will not, buy and sell a function of the free market — something conservatives should embrace?

po1america…that’s exactly the argument that was once made by segregationists about “their opinion” on civil rights for blacks.

Anyway, there’s nothing “Liberal” about equal rights for citizens. There is, however, something “American” about it.

The anti-gay movement is nonsensical, discriminatory and distinctly anti-American.

This isn’t a right vs left thing. This is about basic human decency, of which Card has none.

Four things:

1. How do you define natural?
Animals are arguably more in-tune with nature, and studies have documented more than 1.500 species engage in homosexual behaviour.

2. What’s so great about natural?
If being natural was some sort of moral imperative, the way it should be, then we’d all be dead before we turned 35, because we’d either died because of diseases, accidents or just plain murdered each other. Killing someone or something to achieve our goals is a natural impulse, but we’ve luckily smart enough to have constructed and worked our way almost out of that one.

3. Rjght to marriage
Because marriage isn’t just a religious concept, it’s also a legal one. Not to mention that a lot of religious institutions would gladly marry gay people, if they were allowed to, legally. What we’re actually seeing is a few organized religious institutions are prohibiting and barring other religious institutions from doing what they believe, but also from religious practice, such as marrying same-sex couples. That’s not only discriminating towards gay people, it’s actually discriminating towards quite a few religions.

4.
I’m about to say something about the way you put forth your argument, so I really need you to speak up, if I’m having an unfair interpretation of your opinion, but you seem to be suggesting that nature in itself has a purpose for itself?

That’s not a scientifically valid argument, because stuff like the two genders (men/women) or the biological sexes (male/female) are not actually absolute categories, they’re natural categories we as humans have created to make an easier sense of the world, despite the fact that they don’t actually exist in the natural world. At some point we decided that you could either be male or female, but fact of the matter is that as a male individual you might be more biologically similar to a specific female individual than another specific male individual. One of the clearest examples of this is the classificational problems with hermaphrodites. My basic point is that classification isn’t something we do in absolute terms, it’s something we do with intuitionistic logic (also known as “fuzzy logic”, because it states that it’s a question of degree rather than either/or.)

Most modern scientists who deal with classification, either neuroscientists, philosophers or taxonomists, actually use something called prototype theory to determine categories. A quick example is the birds-example – what is a good example or prototype for a bird? Is it a sparrow, because it has wings, a beak and can fly? Are those the qualifications we use? If so, that means that the ostrich isn’t a bird, because it cannot fly. The point is that while the ostrich is a bird, it’s not a good example of a bird. But we still think it’s a bird. Classifications are not black and white, but grey areas and a lot of them are defined by culture and ease, not by what we actually observe in nature.

They’re mental constructs that makes our lives easier, but they don’t actually exist.

@james-

Marriage is not a super set of sex, it’s a fiscal contract between two people that want to be treated as a single entity, and bestow what is best described as administrative privileges to each other. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are two different definitions of the word.

1- Religious Marriage: which identifies two (or more) as a coupling under a specific deity. This has, and always will be, a power that is controlled solely by individual religious groups. This will never be controlled by the government; You can thank the separation of church and state for that.

2- Civil (government) Marriage: The government concedes that two individuals are inter-dependent and should be treated as such for matters of law and taxation except in cases of personal culpability.

Since our government was founded on the premise that everyone is essentially the same (women and minorities thanks to an amendment), it is a human right until you provide a clause that excludes a specific group of people (Prop 8, DoMA, DADT). Those laws are slowly being declared unconstitutional for those very reasons.

No one is asking christians to compromise their morals. They are simply asking them to acknowledge the fact that it’s not the government’s job to enforce them for them.

Kevin – I do not begrudge a private businessman for making decisions or deciding what he will sell or not sell, my argument is that at the hypocrisy of the “tolerant” left.

Brian – Funny how much of history has been re-written. The segregationists were all democrats. Orville Forbus, Bull Connor, Robert Byrd et al. And yes their opinion was that everything should stay segregated.

Equal rights for citizens. Sure.
I’m not anti-gay. My sister is gay and I could care less. Good for her. If she’s happy, thats all that matters.

Once again, my issue is with the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing. The left is tolerant all day, until you disagree with them. Then your a homophobic bigot who hates women because you won’t let them have their “reproductive rights”. You’re also a baby killer because you served in the military or support the troops. Not to leave out the Global Warning crowd..You’re a ‘Flat Earther if you don’t believe in climate change.
I think I got everyone in there.

Freedom of speech and expression are constitutionally protected rights for ALL citizens. Orson Scott Card has every right to believe what he chooses. Does that mean that everyone should agree with him? Of course not. Disagreement over the definition of marriage is going to continue with or without Mr. Card. If you don’t like his opinions don’t read them. But when you condemn someone for expressing their opinion you are also condemning yourself. Be careful how you tread ladies and gentlemen. Suppressing the opinion of one person can lead to the suppression of all.

Oh, jeez! The guy’s a writer. He was hired to write stories. And he’s a good writer, so that’s all that should matter, not his personal beliefs. There’s no doubt I would probably disagree with the beliefs of many writers (and artists) of the comic books I read, but that doesn’t bother me. All I care about is that they do a good job on the book they’re producing. Everything else is completely irrelevant.

This isn’t a right vs left thing, it is freedom of speech in practice – Card says he opposes gay marriage, so a retailer who supports gay marriage declines to sell his product. By attacking the retailer, you are just supporting your belief in a conctext where you have no reason to. In reality this is capitalism in motion. This is the way America was designed to operate.

I’m not even much of a Superman fan, and I don’t think I’ve ever read anything Card’s written… but the more I see people getting bent out of shape about Card’s new gig, the more inclined I am to purchase multiple copies of Adventures. Just because.

And if Zeus Comics doesn’t want my money, that’s cool. More power to them. Lone Star is just down the road.

Jordan T. Maxwell

February 12, 2013 at 4:26 pm

It’s Card’s right to spew his bigotry through whatever forum he sees fit. It’s DC’s right to hire and assign writers as they see fit. It’s the comic retailer’s right to decide what he is going to make available on his shelves. It’s our right as consumers to buy that comic or not if we find it on a shelf. And it’s my right to call Card a hateful bigot and support businesses that do likewise. I don’t see much need to tolerate intolerance. But I’m also not working actively as part of an organization to keep Card from legally being able to work. God bless America. ;)

That is a strange position Eric. You don’t like Superman or Card, but because a liberal is taking a principled stand against a bigot you are going to go out of your way to financially support the bigot?

The workings of the human mind are baffling.

“i dont on any level see the harm in gay marriage, i dont have any problem with gays at all. but the comparions to pedophilia are not unfounded, homosexuality does absolutly No harm in comparison, however both are 100% unatural. dress it up with what ever “i was born this way” stuff you wish (and i dont disagree that some are born as such mentaly) the simple pure fact is the same genders are NOT phisicaly compatiable. nature or god (whatever you beleive in) did not create us to be compatible with each other, there for it is unatural. end of story.”

James, homosexuality occurs in every species of animal on the planet. That means it’s even more natural than the computer you used to read this article and type a response or marriage in general.

“and again i have ZERO problem with Gay Marriage, but sense when is it a HUMAN right to marriage? isnt that the right of whatever religion created it? im honestly asking i dont know.”

You would be right…if marriage were solely a religious institution. Except it’s not. You don’t need a church, a priest, or even a religion to get married. You can get legally married without any of these things.

There are also a lot of comments on here talking about suppressing Card’s freedom of speech. So rather than quote all of them, I will simply say this:

No one is suppressing Card’s speech. He has the right to say anything and everything he wants. But freedom of speech does NOT mean you are free from criticism of that speech. Freedom of speech is a two-way street and the easiest way for consumers to express their speech is with their purchasing power.

DC is free to hire Card to write Superman and Card is free to say anything he wants about how gay marriage equals pedophilia or whatever such nonsense he believes. And you know what I’m free to do? I’m free to point to Card’s words and say, “this guy is a piece of crap.” I’m free to take my hard-earned money, look at DC Comics, and say, “I will not give any money to a publisher that employs that man.”

That’s how I’m expressing my opinion.

This retailer has to purchase the books he sells in his shop. Clearly, he doesn’t want to give any of his money to Card. That is how he expresses his opinion. If you’re opposed to that, then you’re suppressing his freedom of speech.

po1america:

It’s you and shadowpdf who made this a right vs. left argument in the first place. The rest of us just see this story as a matter of social intolerance, something that, when identified correctly, is wrong regardless of the political stripe of the perpetrator.

Lemme ask you something: how many comments have you posted on religious, family values and parents organization’s web sites following their many fevered boycotts of retail establishments, television networks, radio stations and products manufacturers decrying their hypocrisy? Assuming the answer is zero, you don’t see a certain hypocrisy in choosing now to criticize what’s, in essence, a principled boycott?

Nice troll, by the way.

And HOLY SHIT, Brannon, we’re not to condemn people for their beliefs??? This is the problem with allowing people to keep being born; they have zero f—king perspective. There is absolutely no parallel to be drawn between condemnation of speech and its suppression.

Indeed, we are all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions. We are equally entitled to shit freely on those beliefs and opinions. If a belief is worth having, it’ll withstand the winds of condemnation.

LOL. “1. How do you define natural?
Animals are arguably more in-tune with nature, and studies have documented more than 1.500 species engage in homosexual behaviour.” Animals also engage in incest, cannibalism, and walk out in front of moving vehicles. So, following that logic, it is ok to engage in the above. Its ‘natural’, studies have documented it.

Eric,
actually a Lone Star isn’t just down the road from Zeus.

He needs to get a grip. Gays can already marry in many states. It’s already fully legal in many other countries and has been for over ten years. America is just catching up to the rest of the world. Gay marriage IS going to happen here. My advice for the haters is to get over yourselves, stop telling other people how to live their lives and whom to love. I won’t buy this because I won’t support his line of bigotry.

Card has the right to his opinion. Neal has the right not to stock the book.

But Card maligns a class of people, his stance is based on hate.

Neal’s stance is based on standing against hate.

Intolerance is a cancer. Kudos to Neal for his actions here.

“Animals also engage in incest, cannibalism, and walk out in front of moving vehicles. So, following that logic, it is ok to engage in the above. Its ‘natural’, studies have documented it.”

So following your logic, we should condemn everything that’s natural? Everyone, do not have sex! Repeat, no more procreation! It’s natural and therefore equal with cannibalism and incest!

Jordan T. Maxwell. Keep the name calling out . You no better then the rest of them . Smh.

It is a total bummer that people freak out. I am in no way a hater of gays or whatever. They are people. Have to love people. But I do think their lifestyle choice is destructive. I see it everyday in my line of work of people who are in a bad way because of it. Physically and mentally. Society is so messed up that we try to make it acceptable and trendy. Sad time for all.

Now to all of you who say replace “gay” with Jew or black or whatever. Not the same thing. Stop being ignorant.

The world needs to wake up. Scientists and religious people and everyday people. Wake up.

Let me get this straight.

Orson Scott Card loathes LGBTQ people. Hates them as individuals. Hates the idea of them. Hates that society accepts them. He’s a board member of an organization that is explicitly anti-LGBTQ. NOT anti-gay marriage but anti-gay.

LGBTQ people in the U.S. and around the world are killed because they’re LGBTQ. Gay people do not have the same basic rights and protections in this country that others do (for example, it is legal to fire people or discriminate against people in much of the U.S. for being LGBTQ). People are raped because they’re LGBTQ. People are murdered by their own families because they’re LGBTQ. People have been systematically attacking the acceptance and acknowledgement on LGBTQ people because simply tolerating them is disgusting.

In court when NOM tried to attack gay marriage they didn’t use statistics or reports or present witness, they just were hysterical about how gay people would destroy marriage and civilization as we know it…because they say so.

(Because Jesus of course said, “love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they’re faggots, I hate those kinds of people)

But I’m a bigot for being disgusted by Orson Scott Card and repulsed that DC would hire him?

Orson Scott Card walks around shouting “I hate faggots, so does Jesus and those kinds of people need to go away.” So does the National Organization for Marriage.

Don’t call me a bigot because he hates me and my friends and my relatives and my neighbors. Don’t call me a bigot because he and the organization that he’s a part of want to magically do away with people like us–not by killing, no they would never advocate that–even in countries like Uganda where they helped write laws that criminalize homosexual behavior or simply not reporting homosexual behavior as punishable by imprisonment or death, because they would never support killing people–they just want those people and those bahviors and those ideas…to not exist.

I’m just a worthless faggot and Card doesn’t think I should exist and NOM is actively fighting to make sure that faggots have fewer rights in this country than they already do. Apparently much of the comics community would prefer we didn’t exist either.

Good to know.

Wonder if this same guy boycotted Ultimate Iron Man.

The problem is not Card’s opinions, it is his actions. He sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-marriage equality activist group that has lobbied against gay marriage in every state where it has been an issue. This includes attempts, of varying success, to amend state constitutions of states which legalized gay marriage via Judicial Review to prohibit the practice. That goes beyond merely holding an opinion contrary to mine, that goes to actively attempting to make other people worse off. That’s not cool in my book, and I am massively disappointed that a company that attempts to promote equality (both through characters like Batwoman & E2 Green Lantern and through initiatives like giving tours to kids from Harvey Milk High School) would place their flagship character in the hands of such a person.

I also am somewhat annoyed by people I’ve seen comparing this to Hollywood blacklisting of the late-40′s. The blacklisting was a consequence of GOVERNMENT witch hunts, unconstitutionally scrutinizing creative works for any hint of “subversive” content and deposing people based on any hint of prior association with a group that was remotely Socialist in nature. Here, we have PRIVATE CITIZENS criticizing a company for hiring a man who CURRENTLY sits on the board of directors of what is arguably a hate group.

Cracking up at the people who think being gay is a “choice”. I guess they must have checked the wrong box the day everyone had to pick their sexuality. LMAO oh the ignorance. I can’t wait for gay marriage to become fully legal in America, just so they can wave it in the face of all the jerks like Card who tried to tell them how to live and who to love.

What is even funnier than the stupid animal justifications for homosexuality, is the idea that anyone truly gives a damn about this story. Card doesn’t give a damn, he will either write a Superman book and get paid, or won’t write a Superman book and get paid. Neal will not sell a book at his store and will be linked to story in such a way that potential customers will associate his store with his stance on this. From my stance, I don’t give a damn about whether gays can marry or not, but I can honestly say I am sick of retailers feeling the need to politicize and publicize every little thing. I just want to buy comics from you, I don’t want to know your sexual preference, i don’t want to know your political beliefs, I just want to buy comics from you. You don’t want to sell a comic, fine don’t order it. If I ask about it, then you can explain why you didn’t order it, otherwise, I will not see it and go elsewhere.

Ouch. I smell trouble for the big screen adaptation of “Ender’s Game” when it nears its release date.

“Brian – Funny how much of history has been re-written. The segregationists were all democrats. Orville Forbus, Bull Connor, Robert Byrd et al. And yes their opinion was that everything should stay segregated.”

It’s funny how conservatives don’t understand history.

The pro-segregation Democrats of the civil rights era were southern Dixiecrats who eventually became Republicans and serve as in many ways the ideological bedrock of the current Republican party after the Republicans decided that they could pick up the South by appealing to the racism of white Southern voters. Perhaps you’ve heard of a guy named Strom Thurmond. Then again, given your grasp on history, perhaps you haven’t.

Here, you should read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

“ussescort
February 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm

What is even funnier than the stupid animal justifications for homosexuality, is the idea that anyone truly gives a damn about this story. Card doesn’t give a damn, he will either write a Superman book and get paid, or won’t write a Superman book and get paid. Neal will not sell a book at his store and will be linked to story in such a way that potential customers will associate his store with his stance on this. From my stance, I don’t give a damn about whether gays can marry or not, but I can honestly say I am sick of retailers feeling the need to politicize and publicize every little thing. I just want to buy comics from you, I don’t want to know your sexual preference, i don’t want to know your political beliefs, I just want to buy comics from you. You don’t want to sell a comic, fine don’t order it. If I ask about it, then you can explain why you didn’t order it, otherwise, I will not see it and go elsewhere.”

Hey Einstein – if you don’t want to know about this, there’s a simple solution – don’t read the article.

“Percival Constantine
February 12, 2013 at 4:38 pm

“Animals also engage in incest, cannibalism, and walk out in front of moving vehicles. So, following that logic, it is ok to engage in the above. Its ‘natural’, studies have documented it.”

So following your logic, we should condemn everything that’s natural? Everyone, do not have sex! Repeat, no more procreation! It’s natural and therefore equal with cannibalism and incest!”

Homophobe logic:

Homophobe: Homosexuality is unnatural! It’s evil!

Person with brain: Um, homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, so how exactly is it unnatural?

Homophobe: Nature is evil!

One of the best arguments for homosexuality is that heterosexual couplings let the dumbasses posting on this thread.

led to, not let

“http://www.the-gutters.com/comic/378-ben-bates”

I really hope we see a second part to this where instead of being discovered by the Kents, Kal El’s rocket is found by Fred and Shirley Phelps.

No one is going to change anyone’s mind on this in the comment section so i won’t waste my time sharing my thoughts other than to say this: Good for Zeus Comics for standing up for what they believe in. :)

I always say this to people who equate being gay as a lifestyle or a choice… could you flip a switch in your head and make yourself gay?

No, you couldn’t, the idea would likely repulse you.

No straight person would ever choose to be gay. And the only reason a gay person would choose to be straight is to avoid the terrible homophobia they face, but on a deeper emotional level, the idea would be equally distasteful to them.

You can try and make arguments based on science, but the fact is, that homosexuality exists in nature. You can try and make religous arguments but religion is entirely open to interpretation, you can’t deny there are those of faith who openly embrace gay people. And you could try and argue about the it’s place in civilised society, except ancient civilisations like those of Greece or Rome actively embraced homosexuality and our society has directly evolved from those societies.

Now, I don’t think it’s realistic for everyone to embrace gay people and accept them. Instead, I would say that you accept that homosexuality is a minority group – ie a group that is in the minority and have no choice in this matter. And, as that is the case, that you act with tolerance.

To the matter at hand – should this book be taken off the shelves? That’d depend if there was actually any bigotry portrayed within the book or if Orson Scott Card is using it to promote a message of hate in any way… which I don’t think is likely as it isn’t something DC would stand for.

The man may be a horrible bigot, but this is his job, he still deserves to earn a living. To censor someone in such a way because of their personal views feel wrong and makes me feel uncomfortable.

Has anyone here read Adventures of Superman and can speak directly to it’s content?

Some animals have homosexual intercourse…thereby it’s okay for people to do this.
Female praying mantises eat their sexual partners…and somehow it’s not okay for people to do this.

Seems like we’re just picking and choosing which animals it’s okay to emulate…and that’s discrimination.

Homophobia isn’t a phobia.
You are not scared.
You’re just a *bleeping* asshole.

Richard Neal said it perfectly when he noted replacing homosexuals in Card’s hate speeches with women, Jews, or blacks would cause moral outrage. This isn’t about some misguided fool’s opinion – it’s pure hatred and it promotes inequality – in an iconic character that should represent the best of us all.

DC really is making it hard to like them these days…

Why is it hypocrisy to take a stand against bigotry in any form? If you are Anti-Gay you are a bigot period. There is NO “moral” argument that anyone can make about being Anti-Gay except. JESUS! And I’m sorry. He taught love and tolerance. There is a single verse about not lieing with a man. Yet there are multiple verses that are pro child slavery. Does that mean Child Slavery is ok? There are more verses in the bible saying it is then there are verses saying being gay is bad.

Oh right. You can pick a choose what verses you like to fit your own needs. Got it.

@Colin James Morrison

“Homophobia isn’t a phobia.
You are not scared.
You’re just a *bleeping* asshole”

Please find me one person who is against homosexuality that actually calls themselves homophobic.

To answer my own question, nope, because it hasn’t been released yet. If there were truly something wrong with it’s content then that’d be basis not to stock the book.

Let us turn this argument on it’s head. What if a gay right activist was writing the book and a bigoted store owner refused to carry it based purely on that fact?

There’d be moral outrage on here.

And that is why this story makes me feel uncomfortable.

“No one is asking christians to compromise their morals. They are simply asking them to acknowledge the fact that it’s not the government’s job to enforce them for them”

Wrong. There is an active movement to blacklist Card. Open your eyes already.

“Once again, my issue is with the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing. The left is tolerant all day, until you disagree with them. Then your a homophobic bigot who hates women because you won’t let them have their “reproductive rights”. You’re also a baby killer because you served in the military or support the troops. Not to leave out the Global Warning crowd..You’re a ‘Flat Earther if you don’t believe in climate change.
I think I got everyone in there.”

I’d like to touch on this as well. If you’re anti-gay. Yeah. You’re a Bigot. That’s sort of the exact definition of the term. If you don’t believe in climate change, you’re a fool who can’t see the facts in front of you. And you’re using massive exaggeration in your military example. I’ve never once heard of someone on the left (short of the Vietnam Era) calling the troops baby killers.

No one here is calling for a suppression of anyone’s (as ignorant as it is) opinion. All I see is someone made a bed of hate and now has to lie in it. Voicing your opinions has a price. As does standing by them. If I was a comic writer. I wouldn’t expect people who were Anti-Gay to pick up my work. And guess what? No one would be making them. People that were anti-gay host protests of books with gay characters all the time. Suddenly it’s hypocrisy when the reverse happens? Not how it works.

Paul Penna:

There’s a big difference between intolerance of an opinion and intolerance of a people. The hypothetical store owner who boycotts the gay rights activist is acting out of the latter example of intolerance. That’s not principled, that’s just bigoted. You’re not a bigot for deriding someone’s opinion. “People who hate gays” are not a race, creed, nationality, religion or orientation. This is about people who enjoy greater rights acting against those who’ve been denied them, and in this real-life case, the store owner is acting in the interests of the oppressed group. THAT is why the two situations are not comparable.

@Brian

Please find me one person who is against miscegenation that actually calls themselves racist.

Please find me one person who hates women that actually calls themselves misogynistic.

Please find me one person who hates Jews that actually calls themselves anti-Semitic.

I’d like to know what the stopping point is. If no one should employ Card because of his views (which apparently will not be manifest in this work….):

- Should no restaurant or grocery store sell Card food because of his views?
- If he rents a home or apartment, should the landlord refuse to lease to him because of his views?
- Should no clothing store sell him clothes because of his views?
- Should no social media site, video store, gym, or other institution accept him because of his views?
- Should his parents, family, and friends disown him?
- If we didn’t have a First Amendment, should the government of wherever he lives drive him to the borders and revoke his citizenship because of his views?

Again, I’m asking what the logical stopping point of rejecting a person over their views is. Let’s reductio this to the absurdo and tell me where the end of “you shouldn’t X because of view Y” goes, and if there is an end, why that is.

‘This is about people who enjoy greater rights acting against those who’ve been denied them, and in this real-life case, the store owner is acting in the interests of the oppressed group. THAT is why the two situations are not comparable.’

But the store owner isn’t acting in the interests of an oppressed group.

If the comic book was acting as a vehicle for hate an intolerance, then the store owner would most certainly be in the right but that likely isn’t the case.

The piece of art a writer creates is seperate from a writers own prejudices. If Orson Scott Card’s opinions on homosexuality don’t appear in this book, then I don’t see the basis for not making it available.

I don’t think people should be censored based upon other aspects of their lives.

Their are two reason to be homophobic
1. You youself are homosexual but hiding it and scared. Example all the priest and pastor that are on news with male hookers and touch lil boys.
2. If people are born homosexual THEY ARE it destroys the whole fairy tale religions the homophobic person believes in. Keep arguing they ” want” to be gay that makes sense.

@Gabriel

Please find me one person who is against miscegenation that actually calls themselves racist.

Please find me one person who hates women that actually calls themselves misogynistic.

Please find me one person who hates Jews that actually calls themselves anti-Semitic.

You can’t call someone homophobic, then say “you’re not homophobic, you’re an asshole”. This is my point. You either call someone anti-Semitic, or you call them an asshole; You don’t call them anti-Semitic, then behave as if they themselves have said they were anti-Semitic.

How about this, Adam: I won’t give him any of my money. I would sit down and have a cup of coffee with him, and treat him like a fellow human. But I wouldn’t put one cent in his pocket while he is actively working to deprive others of their rights. And therefore, if I owned a comics shop and had to pay up front for my stock, I wouldn’t carry the comic either.

Brigid, I’m glad you’re open to conversation–but does this apply across the board? I.e., if you owned a restaurant and he wanted a job as a waiter or busboy, would you refuse to hire him (knowing that, on the side, he was on the Board for a traditional marriage group)?

“Crazy Left”

“Rigid Right”

BAH HUMBUG, let them both be eaten by Godzilla, let Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin fart in their general direction, let them be run over by the running of the bulls, but most of all, MAKE THEM BOTH SHUT THEIR BIG FAT TRAPS!!!!

Might have a reason to read Superman now :)

Does anyone boycotting this issue consider the financial implication on the creators not named Orson Scott Card?

Hmmm…

I’ll have to remind myself on May 19th to stop at the comic shop before Chic Fil-A.

Lee: Everyone else involved in the first issue at least are pretty firmly established creators. My only problem with the boycott is that it means missing that Parker/Samnee story.


Some animals have homosexual intercourse…thereby it’s okay for people to do this.
Female praying mantises eat their sexual partners…and somehow it’s not okay for people to do this.

Seems like we’re just picking and choosing which animals it’s okay to emulate…and that’s discrimination.”

Already addressed this asinine argument.

The whole “homosexuality is natural” argument is a response to the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument used by homophobes. Either something being natural or unnatural matters or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

“Turk 182
February 12, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Hmmm…

I’ll have to remind myself on May 19th to stop at the comic shop before Chic Fil-A.”

Translation “I don’t want to admit that I’m attracted to people of my own gender, so maybe if I act like a dickhead to prove I hate gays, people won’t notice I’m really gay.”

Other Adam – fair questions. I think the difference between this and being a busboy is that here he’s being paid to disseminate stories, information, and ideas. As a bus boy, he isn’t. And yes, I do think his views will color his stories. I think it’s a safe bet we won’t be seeing too many appearances of Maggie Sawyer in his comics, for example.

Well, maybe, maybe-not. Actually, now I’m wondering if Maggie Sawyer has shown up in the Nu52, or if she’s gone the way of Keith White. Seriously, I don’t know–all I’m reading from DC is EARTH-2 and WORLD’S FINEST.

‘Does anyone boycotting this issue consider the financial implication on the creators not named Orson Scott Card?’ – Lee

Considering it’s going to be released online before it’s being printed it most likely has already been payed for and produced so really they aren’t going to lose any money. It’s strictly up to DC to decide to publish the work or not at this point (I don’t think not publishing it is going to significantly hurt DC in anyway but I also doubt that printing it would either in the long run)

@Adam Weissman – You are the perfect example of the type of person you claim to hate. I said nothing that says I am anti-gay. You use Einstein’s name as a pejorative, showing all how intelligent you think you are. Your ‘come backs’ to my posts show a stunning lack of cognitive ability that is a shame. I could quote studies that indicate homosexuality is a mental aberration, much along the same lines as depression, schizophrenia, and other neurochemical issues, that, by the way, show up in the animal kingdom in interesting numbers. These studies indicate that homosexuality is a fact of life, not a choice or a lifestyle option. These folks should be treated as fellow humans and nothing less, yet nothing more either. They should not be targets of violence or hatred due to who or what they proclaim. But, if you sleep better at night being a heterophobe, well, I guess the Circle of Life goes on.

Boycott Zeus Comics!

@ Jesse B. They still get paid a royalty per issue sold, right?

I’m not a patron of Zeus Comics. I don’t live in Dallas, I live in Salt Lake City. However, discriminating based on Politics and Religion is not a progressive way of thinking. Thinking this way sends our society back beyond the UnCivil War.

You all remember that Blacks were descriminated against because of their skin, right? Well, this is exactly the same thing. If you can’t handle OSC and how he thinks about Homosexuality, then you don’t have to patronize his comics.

As for Zeus Comics, it may be okay to put ideals over profit, but it may hurt their bottom line.

Good for Zeus Comics! I am glad they won’t support that sick OSC freak.

Adam of the non-Weissman variety: Maggie is showing up regularly in Batwoman. She”s made an appearance in nearly every issue and had an issue that focused pretty much entirely on her not to long ago.

To put things another way -some Dallas comic readers are going to be denied access to the Superman comic due to one person’s personal opinions and beliefs.

@Paul P – This isn’t censorship. It’s business. Neal isn’t stopping anyone from expressing themselves. He’s just refusing to sell it in his store. His store, his right.

Also as a gay man I can assure you I feel Zeus is acting in my interests.

I agree with Zeus, Card has become a complete lunatic with the vitriol he spouts

good for Zeus Comics.

May many more follow their example.

Such a large imagination coming from such a small mind. Sad.

Scott Lobdell writes Superman. Has been writing Superman for the past 6 months. How is Orson Scott Card, who has never written anything half as offensive as the first issue of RedHood and the Outlawas in his fition, any worse.

Also, two very intrinsic arguments against homosexuality I do not understand;

1) It is unnatural; so what? So is shoving sugar-filled sugarballs(coated in sugar) down your throat after every meal. Are candy consumers less humna?

2) It is lifestyle choice; so is being a geek.

I am not saying these are true, but why do they matter?

Card’s organization has directly harmed a couple of my family members by denying them their equal rights here in California by promoting Proposition 8 with propaganda composed of lies and campaign contributions. As a result, I refuse to help support the man financially, as that money he earns may be used to further injure my loved ones. I can only hope that others follow suit, but I cannot compel them to do so. This is not an act of hate on my part. It is me acting to protect those who Card would injure if given the chance as stated in his writings about what he would do if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. The right thing to do against bullies like him is to stand up to them. I commend Zeus Comics for making such a stand.

I consider Card’s opinions to be evil and disgusting. And I am aware that he is far more than your average Conservative, he is very active in his “fight” against homosexuality and seems to have become more and more strident.

And yet…

I don’t like boycotts or blacklisting. They are tools that have often been used against progressives. I doubt DC Comics would let Card write his anti-gay views into a Superman story. DC Comics should promote the comic and then pledge to donate all the money from Card’s comic to a pro-gay organization or something. Then something good would come out of the evil. And no one would have been blacklisted.

I’m fine with gay marriage and I’m fine with freedom of speech. It’s trying to control the way that people think that I disagree with. Card is free to have his feelings and get work. People are free to not purchase his work. Freedom of speech also defends the speech that we disagree with.

So one store won’t be stocking #1 of what is essentially a reprint book (that’s probably only likely to do 30k nationwide anyway).

Not much of a story here really.

“To put things another way -some Dallas comic readers are going to be denied access to the Superman comic due to one person’s personal opinions and beliefs.”

Yes, because brick and mortar stores are the only way to purchase comic b…oh, no wait…we don’t live in 1982 anymore. My mistake.

The hyperbole in this whole debate is amazing.

@JROCKA:

You wrote: “It is a total bummer that people freak out. I am in no way a hater of gays or whatever. They are people. Have to love people. But I do think their lifestyle choice is destructive. I see it everyday in my line of work of people who are in a bad way because of it. Physically and mentally. Society is so messed up that we try to make it acceptable and trendy. Sad time for all.”

Don’t kid yourself. You’re just as much a bigot as homophobes like OSC. You simply don’t have the rocks (har har) to blast us with your crazy like he does.

Sorry, but there is zero evidence to support your ambiguous claims about “destructive lifestyle.” You’re just another softcore bigot, pal.

I’d like you to consider for a moment how laughable your lifestyle argument is. Who’s more likely to stay together and provide a stable family for their children: a hetero couple who got married because of [insert typical ill-conceived reason here, e.g. unplanned pregnancy], or a gay couple who had to fight tooth and nail to have their union recognized?

Twit.

“Once again, my issue is with the hypocrisy surrounding the whole thing”

And that’s the problem: that’s the worst thing to a person like you. The hypocrisy, and nothing else.

It’s nice to know that there will be no crows in this thread, what with all the strawmen being erected.

“@Paul P – This isn’t censorship. It’s business. Neal isn’t stopping anyone from expressing themselves. He’s just refusing to sell it in his store. His store, his right.

Also as a gay man I can assure you I feel Zeus is acting in my interests.”

That is a fair point. I guess what makes me uncomfortable is that others could follow this example, and if this were to happen on a larger scale, that could be considered censorship.

I’d rather consumers have access to the comic book and choose not to buy it, but people should at least be given the option.

I don’t know, the more I read about Orson Scott Card, the clearer it becomes how unpleasant his views are.

Yet, I still enjoy reading the works of HP Lovecraft even though some opinions portrayed within are clearly racist.

I beleive an author and their works can be viewed as seperate entities.

The views of a man such as Orson Scott Card turn my stomach but when a movie version of Ender’s Game is released at the end of the year I’ll likely still go and watch it.

This is a complicated issue, perhaps it is a good thing that DC Comics has drawn attention to it in such a way?

As someone who was ignorant of Card’s hateful actions against equality before this, I certainly feel that I’ve been educated.

On this issue, I really am torn. Seeking to deny someone a voice is something I deeply oppose but it is difficult to support anyone with such a hateful personal viewpoint.

“I don’t like boycotts or blacklisting. They are tools that have often been used against progressives. I doubt DC Comics would let Card write his anti-gay views into a Superman story. DC Comics should promote the comic and then pledge to donate all the money from Card’s comic to a pro-gay organization or something. Then something good would come out of the evil. And no one would have been blacklisted.”

This.

I absolutely agree with this.

I think boycotts and blacklisting is wrong. It’s not something that I wish to in any way support. Just because Orson Scott Card chooses to act from a place of ignorance and hate, doesn’t mean that others should as well.

Well said, Rene.

Thanks, Paul.

Most guys like Orson Scott Card are pretty paranoid already, it comes with the territory. They’re always talking about the gay agenda, and how it is after them. By organizing boycotts people only make him right.

I’m a little torn about whether Zeus should or shouldn’t carry the comic. On the one hand, as a private entity, it is well within his rights to refuse to carry it (note: this is not “censorship” as it relates to Constitutional Rights) and I agree with the sentiments against OSC. On the other hand, it’s always a little disappointing to see a retailer get caught up in politics where the statement made, no matter how pure the intent, does little to change the situation and denies customers access to selection.
Longtime DFW comic collectors have most likely dealt with this if they have ever done business with the Empire of Buddy Saunders, aka Lone Star Comics. Mr. Saunders has a long history of outspokenness towards anything he deems to be indecent. He even had a very public dispute with some DC related creators (Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Marv Wolfman, and others) back in the late ’80s over the increasingly “graphic” material being produced. Saunders is still very much against anything he deems offensive, even as going as far as shredding comics he dislikes and refuses to stock some comics, even publicly refusing to purchase back issues of those comics (and if he gets any, he will destroy them). But then, Saunders is very outspoken in regards to local politics and is openly aligned with the Tea Party, so it really shouldn’t be a surprise.
So really, what will this ultimately do? Probably increase sales of the book (which happens almost any time a comic gets media attention) and inflate OSC’s “worth” as a writer.
Ultimately, I side with Zeus’s decision, since it is Neal’s business and he has the right to stock and sell whatever he wants. If that decision is bad for business, it will become apparent. Likewise, if Buddy Saunders wants to not sell certain books, more power to him. It’s not hurting anybody (except, perhaps, each retailer’s bottom line).
Of course, LGBT folks aren’t really hurting anybody either, so not sure why they should be denied the “rights” that straight people have.

HOWEVER, I would be more inclined to judge the comic on its actual content than on its creator. There are plenty of writers that I wouldn’t want to have dinner with (or share air with) that can write a decent story. And there are plenty of ways to read that story without giving them a penny.

I don’t see any problem with Orson Scott Card’s stance on gay marriage. It is like homosexuals think that they are the only ones allowed to have opinions these days. If you are homosexual, then good for you, you can have free speech about your issue. If you are not homosexual, then you do not have the right to say anything about them unless it is positive. That makes no sense to me at all. It is reverse discrimination.

I find it sad that homosexuals think that their beliefs are all that matters.

If nothing else, I just don’t understand how homosexuality works. Never mind the issue of a God or Budha or whatever, if men and women were supposed to be gay, the human race would have died out eons ago. If we are all evolving, or progressing, towards homosexuality, then we are going to die out. Unless you guys know of some way for two dudes to make (make, not adopt) a baby.

Wow…. I’m not even sure where to start with that post, John. There is so much ignorance in there.

His “stance” is fine in that he has the right to hold it. That is freedom of speech/thought/expression whatever. Where it gets ugly is when he acts upon that belief in order to take away or deny rights to other citizens of the United States. His active participation as a board member of NOM shows that he wants to deny rights towards a portion of this country’s population.

To that extent, it is similar to the Chick-Fil-A debate. They are free to say whatever they want but it gets fuzzy when they start giving money, money acquired through the selling of goods to the public, to organizations (like NOM) that want to deny rights to US citizens.

So, when you say “It is like homosexuals think that they are the only ones allowed to have opinions these days. If you are homosexual, then good for you, you can have free speech about your issue. If you are not homosexual, then you do not have the right to say anything about them unless it is positive. That makes no sense to me at all. It is reverse discrimination”, it shows ignorance of a situation. The problem here is not that OSC is anti-homosexual, the problem here is that he is actively taking part in trying to deny homosexual rights. There is no reverse discrimination here… this is about one group of people screaming to be heard over another group that sees a moral imperative to treat the former as second class citizens.

And to the LGBT community as a whole, their beliefs, at least in regards to equal rights, are all that matters. That is true for virtually any community that feels mistreated… African Americans, the disabled, the elderly, Christians… if you are fighting to be heard, you really aren’t going take resources away from your objective to fight for another cause.

How is what you said about homosexuals and opinions any different than Christians and their opinions and TRYING TO PASS LAWS TO ENFORCE THEIR CHRISTIAN OPINIONS?

“If nothing else, I just don’t understand how homosexuality works” – that is beyond painfully clear. It would appear from your comments, that you have no grasp of evolution or genetics.

First of all, you are assuming that men and women are “supposed” to be anything. Yes, there is a biological imperative, instigated at the genetic cellular level, to reproduce. But the genetic codes that are passed on from one generation to another are not static and change with each offspring. This is a requirement since two lifeforms of different genders, each of whom are a mix of genetic soup created by their parents, each donate DNA to the offspring.
That genetic soup contains the basic blueprints for recreating the base model of that species as well as tons of individual characteristics (traits) that determine what the offspring will look like (and in some respects, how it will behave).
The recipe for homosexuality is in the genetic code. Just like blue eyes, brown hair, pointy ears, widow’s peaks, five fingers, and lactose intolerance… all determined by the genetic code. The soup creates all manner of different species and variants within a species. Those that have genetic traits that in some way help it to reproduce, pass those preferred traits on to the offspring.
This doesn’t mean that non-helpful reproductive traits aren’t also passed on to the offspring. There are dominant and recessive genes. Brown eyes are a dominant trait and blue eyes are recessive. A person can have both the brown and blue genes, but they will have brown eyes since brown trumps blue. But two brown-eyed people, each with a recessive blue gene, can produce a blue eyed child if each parent passes on the recessive gene.
In the same way, whatever coding that makes us “straight” or “gay” is most likely set up as a dominant/recessive. Men and women are no more “supposed” to be a specific sexual orientation than they are “supposed” to have a certain eye color.
Did you know that some straight people are sterile? That their genetic code produced a body that has a non- or poorly functioning reproductive system?
We are not progressing towards homosexuality. And besides, homosexuals are just as likely to have functioning reproductive systems as heterosexuals. “Two dudes” can’t make a baby, but one (gay) dude and one (lesbian) chick could produce offspring.
At the rate at which the human race produces offspring, worrying about humans dying out because of homosexuality is pretty ridiculous.

“But I’m not sure why its still okay to ‘have an opinion’ about gays?”

Because people, just like you, are allowed to have their own opinion. You’re allowed to not like women and not like Jews. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s called personal opinion and First Amendment rights, just like it’s your right to not carry his publications in your store and advocate for his to be dropped from DC’s writing cadre.

Be upset with his views but don’t be upset because he has them and can voice them.

Alex, I don’t think you understood the meaning of his words.

@John Hart

If you look at the history of the human race, the ‘norm’ would most likely be for humans to be bisexual.

That was normal and natural for many ancient civilisations. Don’t think of it as absolutes. Think of it more as a scale. Some people are closer to the straight end of the scale, some are closer to the gay end, while others sit happily in the middle.

But you’re completely missing the issue here.

OSC preaches intolerance, but should that lead to him be essentially blacklisted by some stores?

I’m inclined to say no, despite what I might think of the man.

And it’s kind of insulting for you to suggest that there is a single ‘gay opinion’ on this matter, like gay people are all some single entity.

Being gay is simply a small facet of someones personality, gay people can be as different from each other as straight people can. Is the fact that you’re straight the only thing which defines you?

Saying that something is true of gay people, is like saying that something is true for all straight people. By all means you can have a negative opinion about a gay individual – but all gay people? That’s just ignorance which you are displaying.

Try to broarden your mind.

Doing my duty here as a politically aware EG fan. OSC on homosexuality:

Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a “homophobe” by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true — I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group — they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.

The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters. I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them. At the time, I was criticized by some for being “pro-gay,” while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers. Yet both responses were beside the point. I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.

My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people. Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories. However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia. The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them — for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.

I respect OSC for having the courage of his convictions. I have a gay nephew whom I love dearly and would never wish to come to harm, but I will not support gay marriage. I will concede he may have been born producing less testosterone, but that does not make the case for gay marriage being a civil rights issue. This implies that the highest progression of man, the pinnacle of our development as a species, is the right to have sex with our own gender without opposition. This flies in the face of both faith and evolution. We already know God’s view on the subject, but you can’t hide behind evolution either. Genetic material can’t be passed on unless propagation is done artificially, and that defeats Darwin completely.
Like I said, I will never condone violence against any human, as that violates the command of Christ to love our neighbor, even our enemies, but that does not mean we roll over and tolerate every form of rebellion against God. Vote with your dollars, fine. But we must be allowed to express opposing opinions or we will end up as another failed experiment in the trash bin of history.

People need to realize a very important fact: the first amendment isn’t a right to freedom of speech. It’s a protection against a government infringing upon your speech by punishing you for it or preventing you from speaking
That means when you’re complaining about being called a bigot or a homophobe, you’re being called that by a portion of society. That might not be a large portion of society or a majority, though it may near or beyond that point. It’s a legitimate reaction to your actions. If I see you being an asshole, there’s a chance I might call you out on it. If I see you do a slightly selfish action, I might call you an asshole too. Whether it’s an overreaction to your political position or the truth, people can call you a bigot or a homophobe if they want.
People in society should be shamed and made outcast if they’re perceived to be detrimental in society. It’s not wrong. It’s not bad. It may not be the greatest thing on the planet, but it’s a way how society has reacted to differing views and how society is able to change. Deal with it, because if you can’t, then that change is going to come about that much quicker.

i find this hilarious…”i dont like what you said 23 years ago, so imma gonna boycott your work!!!”

here’s the problem with ‘merica…its not the terrible leadership that keep getting re-elected, its not the left or right extremists….its the moron people. the sheep that keep elected these frauds, the same ones who have all this free time to find and stir up make believe controversies when there aren’t any. So a guy had an opinion you don’t like. boo-hoo. Im waiting for the official boycott of the dollar bill because Washington’s picture is on it and he owned slaves and he thought it was a good thing…uh-oh, someone had an opinion that i dont agree with….where’s that petition to sign?

“i dont like your opinion therefore you are a ______”
It gets old. i for one will never shop at this comic store again…im tired….so very tired of this garbage.

Been thinking about this all afternoon about how to word this. The topic came up a few months ago on an Email list I’m on and sparked one humdinger of a flame war.
I’ve seen and heard people who say it is right to make illegal copies of this film when it comes out because they disagree with OSC’s sociopolitical stances and frank honesty about himself.

Thing is theft is still theft and as the old saying goes two wrongs don’t make a right. Unlike three lefts if you are driving. ;P Object sure, and vote with your wallet absolutely, but stealing is still stealing. Picketing his even is more ethically correct than robbing the man, even if it does make you seem like the Westboro Baptists. Robbing him will only make him hate LGBT people MORE. If the goal of the protest campaign is to show that LGBT people and their supporters are NOT utter assholes dancing on the edges of cultural fascism with themselves in the driver seat THIS time, they should keep it legal and all above board. I understand the desire for vengeance and revenge and pillorying symbols in the social media version of the town square, absolutely I do. BUT no one is above the laws, declaration of rights, charter of rights and freedoms nor any other document we bring out to claim the rights and privileges denied any of us in the past. In closing, sure he’s an unapologetic homophobe, so what, would you prefer he were dishonest and hid it and kept buying his books unwittingly? This is like finding out that KFC is actually a front for the KKK and being upset that you found out because you really really like their chicken. And you are torn up about it not because you have to find a different chicken restaurant, but because now you actually KNOW. My suggestion: to use my metaphor, find a different chicken restaurant, the people that used to go to Chick Fil-A did, and so did the folks who used to go to Papa Johns Pizza. And that isn’t theft, or condoning it.

Hell as a life long Catholic, and given his generation, I’d expect that JRR Tolkein had similar ideas about Homosexuality. where are the pickets surrounding the lord of the rings movies? How many other Authors had similar views, by all accounts Hemmingway was also a dick. Come to that the US, EU, and eastern Canada buy Billions of dollars a year of oil from Islamist states such as Saudi Arabia, as well as several others that ACTUALLY EXECUTE HOMOSEXUALS. To say nothing at all about their other human rights violations. Something which I’m fairly positive OSC hasn’t done or even advocated. Where are the picket signs and boycotts of their commercial interests? Plain and simple this is a double standard applied to a convenient scape goat and low hanging fruit, so those who feel powerless can apply a balm to their offended ego’s. Cheap instant gratification revenge about as just, equitable, and honest as an old school witch burning in the village square.

Leave a Comment

 


Browse the Robot 6 Archives