Orson Scott Card is so in the closet

[gray_ghost]

Have to share these two links posted on monkeygroup awhile back.

Read The Hypocrites of Homosexuality An essay Card wrote in 1990.

And this interview he did for Salon in 2000. LOL....the interviewer is a militant Jewish lesbian . Ummmm.....wooops.

I cannot believe this guy wrote a novel as cool and amazing as Ender's Game. I'm glad I read it before I found out some of his other views.

Oh - btw. Are there any Mormons or jack-Mormons on my flist? If you are, please check out the following quote from the first link:


We Latter-day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter. So the regulation of sexual drives is designated not just to preserve the community of the Saints but also to improve and educate the individuals within it. The Lord asks no more of its members who are tempted toward homosexuality than it does of its unmarried adolescents, its widows and widowers, its divorced members, and its members who never marry. Furthermore, the Lord even guides the sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.

Just out of curiosity - what guidelines does the Lord prescribe for married Mormons and the use of their 'sexual powers?' Is there a list of approved positions?

Comments

[phendog.livejournal.com]

Um, I can't really outline the whole list of Mormon sexual practices, not being a member of the LDS, but "my Mormon stalker ex-boyfriend"(TM) forced me to come with him to some of their services, and they usually have an hour of "family discussion."

I'd guess there are "rules" although probably informal ones. They're encouraged not to be wonton or excessive, and the wife is always to submit to the husband.

So...um, no topping femmes with whips and chains, I'm thinking ;^)

[phendog.livejournal.com]

Oh...actually, I hope elizabuffy answers your question. She'd know better than I probably. She was a Mormon under protest for a short while.

In fact, I don't think they ever officially ex-communicated her...she was too lazy to officially denounce them ;^)

Sorry for my really long, rambling thoughts, but it was an interesting topic...

[phendog.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was really educational. Hmm...I didn't know that either, considering that was one of the things that bothered me as a kid...I almost thought there were TOO many potentially homosexual entendres in some of his books (particularly the Homecoming series) -- I was an exceptionally prudish child, believe it or not. Though...knowing his background, it doesn't surprise me. Sadly, I've heard very similar views often before from other members of the LDS church...and elsewhere.

Wow...that interview did turn hostile fast! I have to say, the interviewer was being a tad biased in her own perception of it (though as it's an honest opinion from her viewpoint, I see nothing wrong with that), but some of the things he says kinda pissed me off too. Ugh...reading his own essay is a terrible experience in justification.

I know both sides of an issue do it...leap to justify, making claims that aren't supportable and are primarily opinion based and simply self-righteous, but still...

Ignoring his comments on the military, his views on homosexuality are disturbing--that it's basically an immature, childish lifestyle that is ultimately unfulfilling--are disturbing. As are the view that one should deny it even if predispositioned. Acting out on homosexuality isn't exactly like acting on the desire to kill one's acquantainces, after all.

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.

I love that last bit. Okay, so not only should they deny it, but they should allow us to deny it. I hate the "shove it back in the closet" attitude. Seriously. Pretending something doesn't exist and isn't going on is the true childishness. Because he says it's important not to shake the "confidence of the community" it's almost as if he's treating the community as the child which needs protection from the realities of the outside world. Kinda reminds me of The Giver, actually...

I predicted toward the beginning of the preceding essay that those who have already accepted the dogmas of the homosexual community as a source of truth superior to the words of the prophets would be incapable of reading what I had actually written here and would instead interpret my words as intolerance, oppression, gay-bashing, or, an epithet used now without a shred of its original meaning, "homophobia." My prediction was exactly fulfilled

So basically...what Card is saying is that disagreement with him is just due to closed mindedness or brainwashing? Well that's a nice way to say "I'm always right."

I do find myself wanting to find a copy of Songmaster to read, though. I may just have to do that...

I also find myself wanting to suddenly write Ender/Bean slash...*evil grin*

Part II...comment cut for length

[phendog.livejournal.com]

ON THE OTHER HAND, I do support the right of the Mormon church to discourage homosexuality in its members. I mean...to tell them not to seems rather intrusive as well. And I've never been entirely certain why people feel so strongly that they need to be a part of something that clearly doesn't want them. There are much more open religions. What DOES bother me is when doctrines are taken outside of the congregation and applied to others in a "holier-than-thou" way. That's as bad as trying to force your religion on me in the first place. Even though I hate the word (because one generally only has to "tolerate" something that they see as bad or unpleasant in the first place), I think "tolerance" is a good thing. Belittling or disenfranchising those you don't agree with by calling them childish or misguided can clearly be harmful and justify all sorts of actions (say the job discrimination discussed in the interview). The ones I'd feel sorriest for is those with friends or relatives (or born into a family) that harbor homophobic sentiments, that find that they themselves are homosexual. That could be truly painful if they are not accepted...

Back to the interview: The rape thing was just downright disturbing. I agree with the interviewer that he belittled the whole issue.

"chaperonage?" *shiver* Interesting. That reminds me of my Mormon stalker ex-boyfriend very much.

One thing I found interesting: I find I'm beginning to like Card better! When he says provocative things I agree with, he's my brother. *L* Seems as though we nearly always feel kinship with those who agree and alienation from those who don't...

Though this comment by Card made me giggle: The average fifteen-year-old teenage boy is genetically predisposed to copulate with anything that moves

Re: Sorry for my really long, rambling thoughts, but it was an interesting topic...

[katekat]

ok, gonna dart in, because i can't not:

Songmaster is soooooooo about the kid having sex with guys. He has male lovers. Yep, yep he does. That's how he heals the king.

i'm pretty sure. dammit, now i'm not sure. i'm almost 100% positive - i know there was a ton of sexual tension. eeep.

Re: Sorry for my really long, rambling thoughts, but it was an interesting topic...

[gray-ghost.livejournal.com]

LOL....Ender/Bean slash. You should do it! Although given his outspoken views on homosexuality (which have been very well known for awhile) I'm sure there are already websites out there devoted to that.

I'm pretty certain that whatever homosexual entrendes you found in his works were not put there intentionally. The impression I got from the interview was that he really isn't big into close self-examination (explains his bashing on Jung/Freud).

After reading the article and interview, I'm convinced he's in the closet. Which kind of sucks for him - because if he later decides to come out of the closet, he is going to have a rough time of it given his position in the public eye. It would mean leaving one community he has been accepted in and joining another that is hostile to him. Of course he's a writer and not a politician, so it won't be as bad for him as the trials the mayor for Spokane is going through. But it will definitely not be pleasant unless there are many heartfelt apologies.

Re: Part II...comment cut for length

[gray-ghost.livejournal.com]

When I was in hs, I was the opinion editor for our newspaper and a little firebrand progressive liberal (which went over big in Orange
County =) ). Anyway...I knew this kid who was a class below me because he was always writing letters to the editor (usually because something I said pissed him off). Totally hated gay people and on other positions he was very right-wing (even for the OC). And very very religious.
Anyway I found out later that he came out of the closet to my hs English AP teacher (who I used to go out to lunch with). Of course I heard rumors to that effect...but I didn't believe them. He was always getting beat up on in PE class by other kids because he was different (and some thought he was gay). But lots of kids in hs have that happen and most of the time it's just because they don't know how to fit in and won't fight back.

But why take the side of people who are making life hell for you? And why look for proof in the Bible about homosexuality being a sin and quote references to Sodom and Gommorah? And incidentally, most of the Biblical quotes seem to come from the Old Testament. Jesus was all about love thy neighbor and stuff. I mean - religion is supposed to be something that gives you strength to overcome hardship, and gives you a place in the community. I don't think it should be a tool to murder a part of yourself.

Of course if some churches don't want gay people among them - that's fine with me. It makes me sick though that some gay people are drawn to certain churches that are like this. It's like a black person showing up to a Klan rally asking to be accepted.

My turn to chime in!

[elizabuffy.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was forced in the LDS church (don't ask) for a while.

Let me make it perfectly clear that Mormons are just like members of everyone else. You will get a completely different response from everyone you ask. It is unfair to clump something someone says in the name of the church to speak for all the members of the church. There is also church docterine and beliefs of individuals. They vary wildly. The official church rule is very conservative, but erring on politically correct: it won't due to piss off the universe, would it? That being said, on to the stereotypes :)

What Card says in his paper is very similar to official church docterine. The church is very much of the philosophy that it's okay to "be gay," just not "act gay." All members of the church are held under the same values. Homosexuality is a sin because two members of the opposite sex cannot be married, and therefore that breaks the "no sex before marriage" commandment. If you really want to make a mormon's head spin, ask them if that means that homosexual couples who get married are therefore not sinning (civil unions and non-church marriages are seen a legitimate in the church's eyes...if it's f/m). The answer, is obviously "no," but it's fun to back them into a corner. :)

Card's paper is what I imagine would be the church's official stance, if not for politics. Arrest all the fags, lock them out of the work place, put them in concentration camps, gas them...but i digress...

I, too, read this and thought "someone's afraid of his own homosexuality!" I do feel sorry for him, if this is the case. Afterall, he's been brought up thinking that his natural inclinations are "wrong," and that he's a dirty person. This would certainly explain his anger!

As for the interview. She is a stronger person than I. The main reason I couldn't bring myself to read Ender's Game (even tho' I have the book) was because of Card's personal views. It is so hard for me to read somthing by an author who views are so entirely at war with mine. It colours my whole experience.

To address you question about married "sexual powers." Again, no one mormon is the same, and everyone has different views. Official church stance is that sex is a beautiful love-act (or some such nonsense) to creat children. Like the catholic church, officially, the church is against anything that prevents pregnancy. Obviously, not all mormons feel this way, just as not all mormons feel homosexuals should be outcast from the church.

~e!

Re: My turn to chime in!

[gray-ghost.livejournal.com]

I fortunately had the experience of reading Ender's Game without knowing anything about the author. It really is an amazing book. Actually I think the interviewer did not know a lot about his personal views either. If she had been prepared for some of his opinions, I think things would have been a little less hostile.

Speaking of Ender's Game - I'm watching this awesome documentary on Discovery channel about turning civilians into killers (focusing on basic training for Marines) and the whole brainwashing process the military has developed over centuries.
eeeek....I think I would really hate the military. I don't know how my sister has been able to cope with it. War really sucks. Even the preparing for war part.

Card's essay is a perfect example for why I've abandoned organized religion. It's nice to know that not all practicing Mormons buy into everything the LDS is selling - but if it isn't sexuality it seems as though there is something else about who you are that is unacceptable to official church doctrine, and I've always seen it as another way to control people and make them feel bad about themselves. Life is hard enough at times without the added guilt trip it seems most religions want to put upon you.

Of course there are exceptioins. I went to a few meetings of Wiccans when I was living in California, and a huge number of them were ex-Catholics, ex-Protestants, ex-Mormons. And some of them were even ordained ministers who knew a lot of religious history.

I thought it was just young people who were playing around at witchcraft - but it's a serious religion and I can see why leaders among established religions view it as such a threat. Especially for women, it's very attractive compared to the other offerings.

Getting back to the LDS position on gay people though. It's good to know not all Mormons believe in that shit - but I don't understand how gay people are sinful. I don't believe Jesus ever had anything to say on the subject in any of the gospels. Of course if you look at the old testament, then letting your daughters get raped and having slaves is okay. So you can probably find plenty of quotes about gay people burning in hell. But Christian stuff is all about the new testament. So how can it be justified? And it's not just the LDS - it's all the denominations of Christianity. Although some of the branches are much more open-minded than the others.