Indeed. Perfect, noble, misunderstood and misused little boys are recurring protagonists in Card's work, and given the way that his public homophobia comes off more like a self-loathing closet case than anything else, that fascination takes on a rather different and decidedly creepy cast.
Wow, OSC is a gay child molester, nobly suppressing his individual desires for the benefit of society, other humans and his moral code? We need more men like him in this world.
It might be noble, if he wasn't also calling for gay people to be put in prison while incorporating his fetish into his stories. Either one alone would be problematic; both at once is pretty damn creepy.
I got a lot of downvotes on the last post--do people think I'm making up or exaggerating Card's homophobia? Here's a few quotes. These are his own words, publicly published; look it up if you don't believe me:
"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."
"If we accept the argument of the hypocrites of homosexuality that their sin is not a sin, we have destroyed ourselves."
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down."
(You'll note I'm not calling for him to be censored. Disagreeing with someone's opinions is the same as saying that they should be outlawed.)
Your characterisation is simply not supported by those quotes in their full context, as far as I am aware. Did you ever seek the context?
Claim: OSC wants states to keep sodomy and anti-homosexual laws on the books.
Quote in Context: The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers vs. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. OSC wrote an essay in 1990 (23 years ago) to a conservative Mormon audience that, at the time, would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, his call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at the time. In the same article he called for them not to be enforced. Within that context this was the liberal and tolerant view - for which OSC was criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." The law was not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003. Now that the law has changed, OSC has no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than he wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
> In the same article he called for them not to be enforced.
Except "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." What's he talking about there? Not rape, or child abuse, or public indecency; those are already illegal. He's saying that consensual gay relationships can be grudgingly tolerated as long as they're aware that what they do is shameful and wrong, and don't start thinking that they deserve the same rights as normal people. See also the next paragraph: "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..."
This is still bigotry and discrimination. Don't expect me to praise a man who punches me in the face just because he refrained from shooting me.
But all right, that was 36 years ago. (Not 23; the paragraph that you copy-pasted from Card's website is from 2003.) How do you explain the 2008 quote where he calls for the overthrow of any government that legalizes gay marriage? What context did I miss there?
The context of the second quote is that he's using the voice of a hypothetical future citizen who will threaten to rise up against a government which is enacting too much change, too fast against the will of the majority.
I don't agree with OSC on these points but the selection of quotations you gave are designed to paint him as a hateful frothing at the mouth bigot, rather than someone who is generally reasonable and sympathetic despite their anti-homosexual religious values. I don't think this is helpful to anyone, personally.
Perhaps, but you have no evidence that card is a gay person with the desire to molest children. And if he were, then his public stance and behavior (assuming he has not actually molested children) would be noble rather than creepy - resisting urges he considers wrong rather than rationalizing them.
Look - I don't agree with him. He dislikes my womanizing lifestyle as much as he dislikes the gay lifestyle. Doesn't mean he is also secretly a womanizer in addition to being gay (as you seem to want to insinuate). Most likely he is a virtuous person who simply disagrees with both of us.
So he's not a bigot because he believes that he's right? How is that different from any other bigot? Do you think that the KKK, or lynch mobs, secretly know that they're wrong and are really just trolling? Or do you consider them "virtuous people who simply disagree"?
