Print
Unless you spend of all of your time in the basement of the rock you’d have to be living under – never emerging, except for the occasional food/water run – you’ve probably heard something about the recent Shadow Complex controversy. For those who aren’t in the know, though, the story goes like this: Shadow Complex, a Metroid-like game for the rough, tough, gray-loving modern gamer, recently released on Xbox Live Arcade to rave reviews. Trouble, however, soon reared its ugly head when famous – and sometimes infamous -- author Orson Scott Card parked his own float in the Shadow Complex promotional parade, licensing the videogame property from developer Chair Entertainment and writing a series of books that take place in the game’s universe.
So, where’s the problem? Why are gamers tossing their virtual copies of Shadow Complex into their equally virtual Xbox fireplaces? Well, let’s just say that Card didn’t settle down and clam up after he wrote “Ender’s Game.” In fact, these days, when he’s not penning best-selling sci-fi literature, Card puts his silver tongue to use in vocal opposition of gay rights. For example, he's written the following: “The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to ‘gay marriage,’ is that it marks the end of democracy in America” and "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."
However, as tempting as it might be to crank a patriotic orchestral soundtrack, stand behind a large, billowing USA flag, and rant about tolerance and love (both platonic and, well, you know) of your fellow man, that’s not what I’m here to do. If you’d like to read about that sort of thing, I consider these two articles to be definitive discussions of Shadow Complex in relation to that subject.
No, since this column exists to discuss the Serious Business of videogames, I’m instead going to focus on a particular reaction to kooky old man Card being shuffled into Shadow Complex’s deck. See, as both of the aforelinked articles point out, many gamers already have a pre-programmed, hot-keyed response to the Card controversy: “It’s just a game.” In other words, why should Big Issues matter in a mindless medium like videogames?
Now then, let’s switch scenes for a moment. It’s 2005. You’ve just finished hunting buffalo in an open field with only a makeshift spear and a cell phone that can’t even access Facebook, so you decide to take a load off by booting up your PC and surfing that newfangled Internet thingy. Before long, though, you stumble across a headline that has you steaming. “Roger Ebert says games aren’t art?” you vent aloud. “What a lame-brained [primitive 2005 expletives censored]!” As you stalk away from your PC, the following quote can be seen on screen:
“But for most gamers, videogames represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.”
Comments are closed on this article
dmonkyking
September 04, 2009 at 1:57pm
Ok, so you're flaming Card because he has a different view than you? You call for a boycott because you can't be tolerant of his views, but everyone has to be tolerant of yours? It's funny how the people who cry about tolerance are only tolerant to those people who share their same views. This is the same kind of stuff you call fowl on when the religious right boycotts something that they don't agree with, but it's ok for you to do it? I happen to agree with Card's stance on gay marriage (and homosexuality in general), because that's what I believe and stand against, but that is besides the point, but calling up nonsense in order to boycott a man because he believes something different is just childish. I have a lot of respect for MaxPC and I've been reading them since they were called Boot, but I'm having serious doubts in the kind of editors they have. Stick to talking about games and leave your misguided "tolerance" at the door.
fullur
August 30, 2009 at 10:35pm
So the article author can say whether "gay marriage" is good or bad (calling the dude who says its wrong a "kook" with no other reason for that logic given is a pretty clear stand on the issue) but your readers can't? That's great.
Incidentally, I agree with those saying this article was great fuel for a non-issue. His views had nothing to do with the game. Do people boycott Will Wright's games because he insulted the intelligence of anyone who does not believe in the hypothesis of Evolution? If so I haven't heard about it. And that was actually sort of related to the concept of Spore.
gendoikari1
September 04, 2009 at 7:16pm
Spore was more an intelligent design simulator than an evolution simulator. Nature does not cause the changes in your creature, but rather the big metal hand in the sky does.
nekollx
September 08, 2009 at 11:47am
Big Metal Hand?
So God is a robot?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
gendoikari1
September 11, 2009 at 7:49pm
It was a reference to Warcraft III (one of the Peasant's lines is "I have been chosen by the big metal hand in the sky", and the cursor for a Human player is a big metal hand in the sky).
nekollx
September 12, 2009 at 10:01am
yes, and i was saying something called a joke.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Severian
August 28, 2009 at 8:11am
I honestly think this is the most ridiculously overblown controversy I've seen in gaming in a while. So a game is made based on an Orson Scott Card book, and everyone gets pissed off because he's written hateful things about gay people. Not in his novels, but on his blog and so forth. The game has nothing gay bashing in it, but people are boycotting it anyway. That is stupid. Robert Heinlein wrote horrible things about Christians, but I still love his books and read them quite often. If a game came out based on one of his novels I'd be freaking ecstatic. This is a complete non-issue turned into something huge by people who are just too damned sensitive. In fact this is almost exactly like people screaming about racism in Resident Evil 5. Can we stop making huge controversies over nothing now please. If you don't like the author, don't read his books, and don't buy the video game. Who cares?! If it's a good game you're only hurting yourself and the creators of the game.
Ixion000000
August 28, 2009 at 12:04am
This is stupid, you discuss this as if the game is saying something about being pro, or anti-gay. It's not. The game itself has nothing to do with the argument. It is just a game. The only reason it is being boycotted by some is to cut profits from an author due to his opinions. Do people go on hunger strikes because they don't like food? No, and I would not be proving some ridiculous point by saying "It's just food." This also has nothing to due with gaming as an art form. I have played through Shadow Complex myself, and I thought it was a great game. I do not argue that video games are a medium for the artist, however, if asked about this subject, I will reply that it is just a game. In my humble opinion, take it or leave it, all this article has done is create needless controversy about a topic related in no way to gaming, computing, or electronics. This controversy has also now led to martial law being imposed on the comments, so it really has done nothing useful. Congratulations.
As for my stands on any political views related to this (They will undoubtedly come up), they do not matter, due to the fact that I posses an excessively rare ability: I can keep my damn mouth shut and not cram those opinions down other people’s throats!
tri8gman
August 27, 2009 at 11:30pm
A better approach might have probably been to name a link about the controversy.
"Trouble, however, soon reared its ugly head when famous – and sometimes
infamous -- author Orson Scott Card parked his own float in the Shadow
Complex promotional parade, licensing the videogame property from
developer Chair Entertainment and writing a series of books that take
place in the game’s universe. *Some of Card's personal views are where that trouble lies.* However, that's not the focus here..."I've seen that approach used on MCP often enough. Just throwing it out there - personally I thought the extra blurb went too far from the focus.
Otherwise interesting, though!
willsmith
August 27, 2009 at 10:56pm
OK, comments martial law is in effect in this thread.
This thread isn't here to discuss gay marriage, whether you're for or against. The topic that's up for discussion is whether games are art or not. You can also discuss whether it's appropriate to boycott a game because you disagree with the political opinions of its creators.
You may NOT discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Nor may you discuss whether Orson Scott Card is a good or bad person. This isn't the appropriate venue for that.
///Will
--
Editor in Chief, Maximum PC
Spider-Mom
August 27, 2009 at 8:45pm
EDIT: If you hadn't already been banned, I probably would have banned you again for this one.
Spider-Mom
August 27, 2009 at 8:36pm
The entire premise of this artical is bull. I am a developer and write. I can tell you one thing, this idiotic "Games as a Legitimate Medium" idea is a compleate waste and only harmful. Do you think that what the rest of the world thinks about games is going to change anything within its own sphere? The only people who it matters weather or not consider games as legitimate are the developers, and do you think THEY need to some how be convinced of this? Well, we dont, there are already a lot of us who put every thing we have into creating the best possible games for our players.
Forcing the hand of this "Games as a Legitimate Medium" idea is only going to bring MORE scrutony to everything. Because you see, the more that "its just a video game" the more creative license developers can take. The more that its just a mindless waste of time the more care free vacation from the world hours of gaming people will be able to enjoy. The only people whos opinions about games the players should care about is their developers. The only people whos opinions matter to the developers are their players.
Every one who seriously enjoys games already knows they are legitimate. Every developer who creates earth shattering good games already knows this. The less were thinking about what some over feed under sexed critic thinks about our games the happier we will be.
I mean if the opinion of a book writer is gong to color your opinion of his books or games, why should we place any more importance on what the rest of the world thinks?
This is America, this guy is free to say that thinks all homos should burn in hell is he wants to and i wish any one who thought otherwise would. All media deserve to be judged based on its self.
In the end its hard for me to see the backlash against Card as anything more than another dot in the continume of propaganda unleashed by the far left. Its an opnion that aside from the over throw of the government is in any shape way or form even remotely radical and constitiutes the majority of the population.
I see the back lack against him as slightly unfair and "Games as a Legitimate Medium" idea irreleivant to both this and gaming as a whole.
nduanetesh
September 02, 2009 at 10:39pm
The content of your post drastically undermines your claim of "I am a developer and write."
PhynaeusClaw
August 27, 2009 at 7:46pm
This is a great article for several reasons:
1) It motivated me to post a comment on MPC for the first time in many, many , many months.
2) There has been a great deal of commentary from the readers of this article so far. And its not all fundamentalist crazy talk in those comments. Some of it is really interesting and important to consider.
3) Probably the most important reason this is a great article is the main reason that you actually wrote it: it spells out a compelling reason to really treat games as culturally relevant and important. Bringing Ebert's short-sighted commentary into the mix was brilliant and really brought the point home for me. Up to that point I was saying to myself, "It's just a game."
I think the reason that it was so easy for gamers to speak up against Ebert was that we ALL felt slighted (or worse) in some way. Mr. Card's rhetoric is considerably more divisive and we (gamers) are therefore not as united in our response to it. I'm also in personal mental anguish since I have loved Card's work for decades and was totally unaware of his stance on homosexuality. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, meaning that gamers are further fractured and unsure how to respond to his voracious intolerance.
Nathan, for once you have actually made me think about the issues you brought up in your article. Oh, I've enjoyed some of your work in the past, but this made me think. I would categorize this article as social analysis, not social commentary, as you've already stated, but looking at games, gamers, and their place in society. Keep up the great work!
The Relic
August 27, 2009 at 5:54pm
I found the game well done, before I'd even heard about Card's name being affiliated with it. And ultimately I don't care if his name is affiliated with it, or his idiotic opinions, I will still enjoy the game just as much.
Because you see, I don't have to agree with an idiotic opinion to enjoy a game. I don't agree with illicit drug use, but I enjoy If 6 Was 9. I don't agree with Mel Gibson's drunken rant against Jews, but I enjoy Mad Max. I don't agree with Isaac Asimov's opinions on government, but he is easily my favorite SF writer.
See where I am going with this?
They have the right to their opinions, and can do what they want.
Here we are now, entertain us ^_^.
HeartBurnKid
August 27, 2009 at 4:18pm
I have said, "It's just a game" before. Then again, I've also said "It's just a movie" and "It's just a TV show". As well as "It's just a novel".
I guess what I'm saying is, I say "meh" to all media eventually.
w2ed
August 27, 2009 at 2:19pm
... but the only reason why these debates come up - be it in literature, paintings, sculpture, photography, film, music or games - is that someone is stupid enough to make something out of it.
Stars, musicians, and artists say and do things all of the time that we disagree with - sometimes they ARE what we disagree with. In most cases we write this off and ignore it, celebrating their work anyways with little tono acknowledgement of the stupidity behind their problems, and other times - especially when it has no bearing on the piece of work being promoted - we make such a fuss over it that we ignore or fail to enjoy something because of it.
I wish I could play the game, but I seriously doubt they're going to port it to the mac or bring it out for the PS2 anytime soon, despite the fact that the promo images I've seen for it seem to suggest that both could pull off the stuff done in it. I thoroughly enjoyed "Empire" (the book that is theIP for the game in question) as well as the Ender Saga. The fact that he is religous means nothing to me, as I've never met him (or anyone else I liked or followed, authorwise) in person.
I'm not saying that a game is not art - in fact, it is more art than we acknowledge. There is simply too much going on in some games, with complex stories and characters, battles that range from simple to epic, to treat games as if they aren't.
What I am saying is that we should ignore the source of the problem - be it a star, an author, a creator, or somebody else - and enjoy the work created. Just because Freddy Mercury died of Aids in 1991 after relating to the world he was homosexual doesn't mean we stopped listening to Queen's music. We didn't stop listening to jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Jim Morrisonbecause of theyr connection to drugs or alcohol in their deaths. Hunter S Thompson commited suicide, yet we still read or watch "Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas." I'm sure that we still watch many of Tom Cruise's and Mel Gibson's films, in spite of both having said and done things many of us disagree with. I'm sure there are just as many people behind the scenes of the movies and TV shows we watch, music we listen to, things we participate in, or games we play, who are homophobic, anti-abortion, anti-drug as there are people who are pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, and are getting high every night.
If you're stupid enough to boycott this game or his books because of his views on gay marriage, that's fine - it's all on you. It just leaves more for me to enjoy.
Vahn16
August 27, 2009 at 2:17pm
Yeesh, this commenting thread exploded for all the wrong reasons. Let's see if we can clear up a few points here.
1. This is not in any way a social commentary, as many of you seem to think. I used the first two paragraphs of the article to explain potential reasons why people might object to Card's involvement with Shadow Complex. My opinions do not factor into that portion of the article. Honestly, I even agree with a few of Card's points, but that's neither here nor there. Point is, the Shadow Complex controversey was merely used as an EXAMPLE here. Nothing
more.2. Nowhere in this article do I discuss gay rights. I mention them, but there is no discussion beyond that. The purpose of this article was to highlight a situation in which the "just a game" argument was used (specifically, the Shadow Complex controversey), and to discuss why "just a game" has outlived its usefulness.
3. Thus, I brought in the section about Roger Ebert and his dismissal of games as an art form. When that happened, gamers rallied and told Ebert why he was wrong. Games, they argued, are a legitimate means of expression. However, now that we've been faced with a situation in which our purchase of game could potentially make some sort of statement, many gamers are saying that Shadow Complex is just a game, and that we shouldn't care about the larger issues surrounding it. So basically, they're saying the exact opposite of what they told Ebert. So, if gamers don't buy into their own argument about games as a legitimate form of expression, then why should anyone else?
4. Thus, my MAIN POINT was that it doesn't matter if we tell people that games are a "legitimate" medium. We need to instead ACT like they are, and not write off serious issues when they're attached to games, no matter how tangentally.
--Nathan Grayson
stardust
August 27, 2009 at 2:59pm
Mr.Grayson while I admit to missing the point of your article myself , you must yourself remember that we live in the most politically charged and divisive time in our nations history since the Civil War . When you started about your article about Shadow Complex off in the 1st paragragh talking about Mr.Card writings on gay marriage you started my mind on the social commentary path . Mr.Card's comments have no baring on the game itself other than the fact that he wrote novels they are based on .
Why can't a game just be a game , not everything has to be socially relavent . Personnally when games and gaming company start deciding to make their games socially relavent I myself will stop buying them .
willsmith
August 27, 2009 at 10:49pm
Actually, I think almost any student of history would disagree with you. You could make a good case that either the time leading up to our entry in WWI, the years of the Great Depression, or the time from the end of segregation until the mid-70s was much more divisive.
People always think that they're living in interesting times, but the thing that we're doing now is partisan bickering over mostly minor issues, which distracts us from the real problems.
Mr. Card's politics are relevant, because it's safe to assume that he makes money on sales of the game. Many people may not want to support, even in the slightest way, someone who disagrees with them on issues they feel passionate about.
DePat
August 28, 2009 at 7:29am
Unless Mr. Card included his way of thinking in the game, his politics are irrelevant. Just because he stand to make money on the sale of the game should not make us boycott the game. Now if he attempt to promulgate his political views through the game, then I will have no problem boycotting the came. Let me give you an example, using mass media. Glenn Beck on Foxx called said that the President of the United Stated has a deep hatred of white man and that he (the president) was a racist. Well since that time I stopped watching Glenn Beck show. So far, 20 plus companies stopped advertising on his show and when I am aware of any other company that continue to advertise on his show I stop buying their products for the simple reason that they are helping him propagate hatred (without a shred of proof) and the man has not even apologize to the president for the outrageous comments he made.
My point is that unless the medium in question is used to actively convey a message I disagree with, I will not boycott the medium in question. Another example is Whole Food. The CEO and founder of Whole Food is against Health Care reform. I did not boycott Whole Food stores because of that. However, if he put message in the store to drive his point accross then I will for sure boycott Whole Food Store.
DePat
stardust
August 28, 2009 at 5:08am
I will disagree about with one of your points Will . I was living in Memphis in 68 when MLK was shot . I am probably a little older than most of the posters here I was born in the 50's came of age in the late 60's early 70's . I volunteered for Marine Corps at the end of the Vietnam War when anyone in the service was looked down on . While race relations were bad people were never as vicious toward one another as they are now . Yes there were race riots in the days after MLK was shot which were understandable , but for the most parts blacks and whites got along well with each other .
Anyway back to the main topic if don't like Mr.Card's politics don't by his books . Boycotting the game because Mr.Card wrote some novels based on the game seems redicilous to me . As you said Will he licensed the game from the developers not the other way around . If that is the case they stand to make money off his novels not the other way around .
deadgarth
August 27, 2009 at 2:22pm
I agree with your main point, the media certainly acts like games are a legitimate medium when it picks up all the GTA violence inducing stuff and all that and we should in turn fight to have the actual gamer's voices heard.
However, I don't think we will have much of an impact in this way. I think the only way games will be accepted as an equally legitimate form of media is through time. When the average age of a gamer is 65 instead of 35. By that time, most all adults will accept video games as well as music and movies and there will be no more controversy except from the new minority.
camulus
August 27, 2009 at 12:13pm
How'd this get to be about gay marriage. What does that have to do with the game at all. If any mass marketed product should be boycotted shouldn't Ford Automobiles be at the front of the line. I'm pretty sure agreeing with Hitler's goal is a bigger deal than being verbally anti-gay. It's not like Card's approving of people smashing down homosexual's doors then torturing them and sending them off to concentration camps. Ford actually did exactly that.
HeartBurnKid
August 27, 2009 at 4:20pm
Card, on the other hand, is alive and well, preaching intolerance and advocating the overthrow of the government today.
Orson Scott Card: living proof that being a sci-fi writer doesn't necessarily make you intelligent, tolerant, or compassionate.
stardust
August 27, 2009 at 5:33pm
You talk about Mr.Card's preaching intolerance when you are just as intolerant of his belief's . Some of the most intolerent people in the world are the one preaching tolerance . These so called socially evolved paragons of tolerance believe anyone with religious beliefs to be ignorant bible thumpers . But they are truly tolerant of only those who hold the same beliefs as they do .
oihorse
August 27, 2009 at 5:49pm
Wow Stardust, your double speak could break minds.
Arguing against someone else's belief's does NOT make you intolerant.
Not everyone's beliefs or ideas are, should, or can be placed on equal footing.
But please keep painting with that epicly wide brush.
stardust
August 27, 2009 at 6:18pm
I just name a few of the so called socially evolved that I speak of Bill Maher one of the truly socially evolved . Just watch his show he goes out of his way to insult Christian's for their belief in some neblus figament of their imagination somewhere in space his words not mine .
Rosey O'Donnell who has said that hunters should be shot and that nop one should be allow to own guns . Oh I forgot that is except for her body bodyguards .
They have a right to this opinion , I served in the Marine Corps to defend their right to make such statements . Yet if I dared to voice my beliefs I am consider intolerant .
deadgarth
August 27, 2009 at 6:04pm
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Constitution does put everyone's beliefs and ideas on equal footing, its called freedom of speech (as long as its not inciting violence, etc). It's those people's actions that are not fully protected. When I say I don't agree with gay marriage being legalized and you call me an idiot (not you personally) and a bigot and that I should be more tolerant, you are most definitely being intolerant of my beliefs. Calling people names is not arguing against their beliefs.
If he had said "I disagree with Orson's views because he advocates overthrowing the government and that's a bad thing," that would be rational. But instead, calling him unintelligent, intolerant, and not compassionate, is in fact displaying his own inability to argue without intolerance himself.
oihorse
August 27, 2009 at 8:23pm
Um, no.
The Constitution does not put everyone's beliefs and ideas on equal footing.
The Constitution allow people to voice opinions without fear of government reprisal.
It does not render a crockpot's idealogies equal to ideas with actual merit.
Calling someone unintelligent, intolerant and not compassionate when said target fits those models is NOT being intolerant oneself. Otherwise any sort of criticism and debate is rendered useless. Not everyone is correct, not everyone's ideas are good, or worthy or contain merit.
This is called harsh reality.
In Card's case he IS being intolerant. He is using religion as a crutch to defend the notion that two people of the same sex marrying will somehow threaten or pollute HIS moral fiber. This has about as much merit as a recovering alcoholic worried he'll fall of the wagon if someone somewhere else has a drink at a bar.
It's shoddy logic on Card's behalf and the same ploy (but my religion says I must do X!) used for centuries to deny group A from having what group B has.
Muerte
August 27, 2009 at 1:58pm
Its not that I actually expect people who read this magazin/website to actually get his point, but cmon at least give it a try.
I swear if you people were anymore dense you'd have your own orbits.
Its not completely about gay rights its more about not letting your preferred medium of expression be dismissed as insignificant.
And about that Ford thing, yeah awful stuff, that compares only to slavery except that it wasn't us that perpetuated it so it is so much worse.
Having a social conscience is what this article is about.
Try having one.
stardust
August 27, 2009 at 2:22pm
Once again if I feel the need for social commentary I would be reading The Nation or the NY Times . I read MPC hardware , software and gaming news not for MPC to be my moral compass .
Oh and by the way name calling and degrading other posters on the forum is not the best of promoting social consciounce . This is the reason why we lesser forms of humans really don't want to follow along like sheep to the more socially evolved such as your self .
Muerte
August 28, 2009 at 8:36am
I buy Playboy for the pictures but they have a few good articles in there also. It doesn't make them any less relevant.
And my comment about density was very clever IMO.
If you want I'll explain it to you.
:)
lancethepants
August 27, 2009 at 1:06pm
Agreed, What does this have to do with gay marriage at all. It's rediculous the tangent this artice went off on. The author clearly has some outspoken opinions, which he let stifle the article and miss the whole point. MaximumPC should be more cautious about who they let freelance write on their site
stardust
August 27, 2009 at 12:51pm
Mr.Card has a right to he's beliefs . I don't read MPC for it's political or social commentary , but for news on PC hardware and software . If the writer feels the need to write political or social commentary he needs to send these articles to The Nation or maybe The NY Times .
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 1:20pm
please remember this is basicly NAthan's soapboax, its a online only "feature" so can can go off hard news, that's the point...
though his intended point was a little muddled
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
pl4t0
August 27, 2009 at 12:47pm
I agree with this, Card had NOTHING to do with the game besides create the IP it's based on. The game was written by different people, and it deals with events different from those in the book. Homosexuality isn't even mentioned in the game at all!
pl4t0
August 27, 2009 at 12:47pm
so wait; your saying that he's basically a hate-monger against gays, while hating Card and all the mormons yourself?
bjtalbot
August 27, 2009 at 11:36am
Did you know that Mormons are Christian? Have you ever heard of the actual name of our church:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Mormons number 1 goal is to preach of Christ, to persude repentance and continually follow Christ.
I don't know where you get this quasi crap.
zepontiff
August 27, 2009 at 10:57am
Author is shooting himself in the foot. He is upset because people go to the "its just a game excuse" but doesn't think book, movie, etc. mediums do the same thing? Do we not invalidate our "artistic" medium by saying we should be different?
pl4t0
August 27, 2009 at 10:55am
I have to say, I've seen a few of these articles where the writers completely miss the point of, not only what they quoted him saying in the article, but the books that Shadow Complex is based upon, and I think that these articles are simply a waste of time.
For instance:
“The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and
Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to ‘gay marriage,’ is that it
marks the end of democracy in America.”
Do you realize what he's actually saying? Not that homosexuals will destroy democracy...that is absolutely loony to think...but that the SUPREME COURT passing laws and giving the gay community legal recognition, rather than a vote by the PEOPLE, is the end of democracy. Please stop taking the man's words out of context.
If you want to hate a guy for being conservative, just go ahead and say it, don't beat around the bush like this.
deadgarth
August 27, 2009 at 11:16am
Agreed, people quoting Orson Scott Card seem to miss his main points entirely.
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 11:26am
is it (o)(o)?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
nekollx
August 27, 2009 at 11:26am
is it (o)(o)?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
