If I found out my boss or the owner of my company were writing the kind of things that Card has written, about any group — religious groups, races, sexual orientation, whatever — and sitting on the board of a political action committee against them, then yeah, I’d do whatever I could to leave.

If I were working for a company that were striking a long-term deal or partnership with somebody like that, then I’d try to find out the details; how much of my work is funding them? Then base the decision on that.

If it were a one time deal or a tangential relationship, I’d probably just let it slide. And still speak out against the guy wherever I could online, making it clear that my opinions aren’t the company’s opinions, etc.

But who knows? It’s easy to guess what you’d do in that situation, but harder to know until you’re in it. It all depends on how strongly you feel about the issue, how offensive the actions of the people you’re talking about, and how much luxury you have in deciding where to work.

I don’t mind striking through a line or two of inaccurate material with corrections posted, but you have so many edits after the fact that it stretches your article beyond the normal point of interest.

I don’t make invisible edits to this blog except for typos or extreme grammar mishaps, and then only if I catch them before they’ve sat a day. If you’re arrogant enough to be broadcasting your opinions out on the internet, you have to stand by them and leave them for the record, even if your opinion has changed since then. As for the part of being “stretched beyond the point of interest,” then with all due respect I’d say: welcome to my personal weblog that I pay for with my own money.

I also think, though, that some people, like yourself, take this narrow-minded view to an extreme that is neither necessary nor relevant to your causes. As you stated, a lot of people simply don’t care about Card’s views, nor anyone else’s, when it comes to whether or not to buy a game, a movie, or a book. It simply boils down to whether or not it interests them. Sometimes you take it to such an extreme that you voice inaccuracies or read more into views expressed in the work than are really relevant or real.

I was pretty clear in saying, repeatedly, that Card’s views are by all accounts not expressed in the game itself. The only “inaccuracy” I voiced — and repeatedly acknowledged it was a big one — was stating that Card gets money from sales of the game as if it were an established fact.

I said that I don’t believe in separating a piece of work from its creator, since they’re all part of what he’s putting out into the world. There’s nothing narrow-minded about that; it’s exactly the same act of setting priorities that you defend for yourself. This is a priority for me, as it is for anyone else who said “I’m not buying the game because Card’s name is attached to it.”

Where you cross the line is in saying that my apathy and indifference in either my purchases or my likes makes me a bad person.

That would cross the line, which is why I’m glad that I never said it or anything like it. In fact, considering how much I’ve gone on about people choosing and thinking for themselves, I don’t like your implying that I said it.

If you don’t care about the issue, fine. If you care about the issue but don’t think any harm was done here, great. If you care about the issue, you do think serious harm is being done, but you really really want to play a videogame, then that kind of sucks but hey, that’s your prerogative.

What’s not fine:
1) Saying that because it’s not an issue that affects you, it’s not an issue at all.
2) Saying that because you don’t think it’s a big deal, other people shouldn’t think it’s a big deal.
3) Voting on something that affects other people, based solely on your gut reaction or what your church has told you instead of what is legally fair, because you’re too lazy or don’t care enough about the issue to make a rational decision for yourself.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I am perfectly fine with every man and woman having equal rights across the board, be they political or religious views, so long as they don’t harm a living person unnecessarily. I’m for gay marriage, the legalization of pot, and and the illegalization of abortions in every non-extreme, non-crime-related case. I think that free health care for all is not a socialistic view but a right that all humans should have, and that every person who is capable of forming an opinion and expressing it in non-lethal ways should be allowed to do so, even when they are at an extreme and I disagree with their views.

I also think, though, that some people, like yourself, take this narrow-minded view to an extreme that is neither necessary nor relevant to your causes. As you stated, a lot of people simply don’t care about Card’s views, nor anyone else’s, when it comes to whether or not to buy a game, a movie, or a book. It simply boils down to whether or not it interests them. Sometimes you take it to such an extreme that you voice inaccuracies or read more into views expressed in the work than are really relevant or real.

I’m not saying that you are wrong for choosing not to buy anything with Orson Scott Card’s name attached to it: You obviously dislike him and disagree with his views, and you live in a place where you’re allowed to have and can voice them. I personally find it stupid for people to judge or refuses to try anything created by someone with obviously different views from your own. That said, beyond voicing that opinion I just expressed, it’s not my business.

Where you cross the line is in saying that my apathy and indifference in either my purchases or my likes makes me a bad person. Just because I care about some other social injustice more than yours or can enjoy something made by someone people disagree with doesn’t make me a bad person; in many ways, I feel it makes me a good person, because I can appreciate it on its own level without saying “I can’t do X because X’s creator does or believes in this.” I’ve learned that there are more important areas to worry about than by boycotting or protesting an artists or their creations, be they in music, movie, video game or book format. So long as I am not forced to do something I dislike, I don’t care, and the fact that I don’t care does not make me a bad person – it just means my priorities in life are different from yours.

My apologies in going a little long in response.

Under the current laws, I, as a man, am allowed to marry a woman.
My girlfriend, as a woman, is allowed to marry a man.

I am not allowed to marry a man. Granted, as a straight boy, I don’t want to, but that’s irrelevant. The fact is that men and women have been granted different rights from one another. This takes it out of the realm of gay rights and into plain sexism, a foundation on which there is sturdier ground.

Applying separate laws to who a man and who a woman can marry is a concept called “separate but equal” and it has been found in the arena of race to be NOT valid. This concept is what was used as the basis for Jim Crow laws and apartheid, and has no place in an intelligent, enlightened society.

Perhaps it’s overkill, but I’m hoping controversy like this will be enough to starve the bigots out. Consider if they’d had some sort of seer peering into the crystal ball to see this all coming. Consider this especially if word of this *does* financially impact the sales of the game…

Something like this might have happened. “Yes, Mr. Card… we’re sorry, but the deal’s not going through. We’re going to license to some other author instead. Our company clairvoyant has reliably informed us that we don’t want to be associated with a douchebag.”

Well, there may not be any future-seers out there warning companies of this sort of thing, but there are certainly board members who learn from their mistakes.

I’m sorry, Mr. David, but if you didn’t want to be potentially damaged by this, as you say, you shouldn’t have signed up to write a game associated with an asshat. As for you developers, you have some say in your company, too. Say it and stop kissing arse. The worst that can happen is that you can get fired over expressing an unpopular opinion, and that’s way less of a bad thing that having a company on your resume that has known bigot associations.

If there is collateral damage in stopping bigotry, the bigot is to blame.

I agree that a bigot’s right to say what they want is important. Is it evil that I think of this in a practical way: If they didn’t have the right to say it, we would never know, never be able to ferret them out and destroy them?

While they are valid reasons to me and others, validity is purely subjective as what is valid to me may or will not be valid to another. I think that the one thing that sums it up best for me is the fact that like it or not marriage is a religious institution. I know I am going to hear ” No its not its a contract for distribution of property yada yada yada.” [...] You asked for a valid argument so here it is, but again validity is subjective….

You’re not going to get “skewered” as long as you present your opinions reasonably. But while you presented your opinion reasonably, it’s not valid.

The whole problem is what you casually dismiss with a “yada yada yada.” Marriage is not a religious institution. The government issues marriage licenses. The government is subject to the first amendment to the constitution. The government can’t condone one religion’s beliefs over another (or over the lack of religion).

Do you truly appreciate why that’s the case, and why it’s a good thing? So many religious groups decry it as an endorsement of atheism, which is nonsense: it’s the very concept that keeps those religious groups free to practice their beliefs however they want, within the law.

Your interpretation of Christianity is different from mine; I say that it’s perfectly acceptable to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity, while you say it’s forbidden. There are hundreds of churches that agree with you, and hundreds that agree with me. You may be 100% convinced that your beliefs are the right ones, but the government doesn’t care. The government does not and cannot make a call as to which one is right: otherwise, the government could declare neither of us is right. And it’s not just “Protestant Christians” or “most religions” or “most western religions,” but all religions. When you want to legally impose your beliefs on me, that just opens the door for other groups to impose their beliefs on you.

You say that most atheists you’ve talked to don’t care if it’s called marriage. Again, “most” doesn’t cut it for law. There are plenty of Christians or other religious couples who do care. They want to celebrate their marriages just like every other couple is able to, their church is ready and willing to perform the ceremony, but the government is standing in their way? That is invalid, and there’s nothing subjective about it: it is simply unfair. That is a violation of the separation of church and state.

You say that “lawsuits will spring up?” First, what might happen is completely irrelevant: what is happening right now is unfair. If and when churches get hit with lawsuits, they will simply direct the objecting parties to the first amendment to the constitution, which guarantees their right to deny marriage ceremonies to anybody they choose. The case will get thrown out. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is just using scare tactics to manipulating you into believing your religion is under attack.

Once again, because so many people choose to ignore this fact: Churches don’t issue marriage licenses. They perform ceremonies, and they’re free to choose which ceremonies are performed.

Thousands of couples get married all over the country all the time. They’re not asked what their religion is. They’re not asked if they plan to have children. They’re definitely not asked to show their genitalia for verification. They’re free to have their marriage sanctified by a church, if they want. If you extend that to some, you have to extend it to all. There’s nothing subjective about that; it’s only fair.

Everyone seems to be saying that the issue is subjective. It is a different issue for Christians than it is for non-Christians (although plenty of Christians disagree).

So the real issue, in the end, is: how do you build a society built on such subjectivities?

The answer: separate church from state. Which is what most of the western world has done. Once you remove religious doctrine from state decisions in this way, there is only one answer.

I am sorry but I don’t agree with you. I think that there are many valid reasons for why there shouldnt be gay marriage. While they are valid reasons to me and others, validity is purely subjective as what is valid to me may or will not be valid to another. I think that the one thing that sums it up best for me is the fact that like it or not marriage is a religious institution. I know I am going to hear ” No its not its a contract for distribution of property yada yada yada.” For the most part in the U.S. it is a Christian or Judaic institution, though with recognition given to wiccans and other religious institutions over the last 50 years it has opened up. But it is still largely a religious institution with the majority of the rites based on a christian bible or muslim Koran.

So being largely a religious institution why push to have the name marriage? Why not push for legeslation that will give you the EXACT same rights and Priveleges as Marriage, you just dont call it marriage. By forceing churchs to perform same sex Marriages you are hopeing to alter their doctrine of faith to allow that homosexualtity is an acceptible christian lifestyle when currently it is not. This is a way for those that are christians but are homosexual to be able to reconcile the two. Because once it is allowed it will slowly force a change in church doctrine. Lawsuits will spring up out the wazoo for any church that refuses to perform a same sex service or refuses to allow a same sex service to be performed on church property. Like it or not the New Testiment is clear homosexuality is not permissible to a christian, and anyone who calls them selves a christian follows the New Testiment. Please dont bring up things from the old testiment as with the coming of christ a new testiment was established between mankind and god hence the name new testiment. If I hear one more no meat on friday or an eye for an eye deal I am going to puke.

God created EVERYONE with flaws, struggles to be overcome, and lessons to be learned. God didnt create man to be perfect as we kinda screwed that up when we exercised free will and ate the apple. We have lessons to be learned and struggles to overcome in order to prove our love and devotion to our god. Is it cruel to create us to be a certain way but tell us that acting upon that is a sin? I dont think so, we are commanded by our creator to follow certain guidelines no matter the obstacles that the creator puts in our path as a means of proving our devotion and love. God doesnt have to prove his love for us, we have to prove ours to him.

Granted this is a purely theological argument, but I have found that those who are the most adamant about forcing same sex marriage are those that profess to be christian or to haveing a strong faith in god. Most people that I have talked to that are Athiests dont really care if its called marriage or not so long as they get the same rights as Married couples.

You asked for a valid argument so here it is, but again validity is subjective….