User:Annette Maon/Janis Ian and Orson Scott Card

As an avid fan of Orson Scott Card's writing (both fiction and his weekly opinion columns) I am disappointed at the lack of WP:NPOV in the article's coverage of the accusations of homophobia raised against him. The article quotes many activist sources (some of them reliable) that label Orson Scott Card as a homophobe because of his active, vocal and unapologetic opposition to gay marriage and his refusal to compromise his religious belief. It mentions some of his reactions to these accusations but only as discounted primary sources.

The article does not give due weight to multiple secondary sources  all of which quote the following a post by Janis Ian. Let me say first that I consider Scott a close friend; the time we don't have together physically, we make up through the heart. If I had to lean on someone, or needed an ear, I would think of him. And if you've read my autobiography, you'll know that in a time of great trouble, he was very, very, good to me.

By the way, the gay community was nowhere to be seen when I was at my lowest.

Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote.

Given that he's a devout Mormon, of course he doesn't think gay marriage is a good thing. Let's face it - a lot of people feel that way! His article ... speaks more to the courts and the separation of church and state than my own relationship with my partner - or for that matter, Scott's other gay friends.

And speaking of my partner... Scott has never treated my relationship, or my partner, with anything but the utmost respect. We've been welcomed into his home, invited to his childrens' weddings, sent announcements of births and deaths - all to both of us, as a family unit. His children regard us as a family unit, and I've never heard or felt the slightest breath of censure from any one of them.

Scott's also a Republican, while I'm a Democrat - and we manage to discuss our differences over the table without ever getting loud or crazy. Personally, I think if more people did that, the world would be a better place. Ian's defense of Card against the homophobia accusations leveled by a militant minority within the LGBT community is not even mentioned in the article. What is currently highlighted and emphasized on the talk pages is a petition of only 14,000 people who called for a highly publicized boycott of his 2013 "Ender's Game" movie. There is no mention of the many articles, blogs and posts on the net some of which disagree with Card's opinions on homosexuality but oppose the boycott. Archived talk pages show that attempts to introduce even a single line about opposition to the boycott were reversed.

Card’s fiction portrayed gay characters in a positive light when it was still controversial to even mention the topic. He was a champion of tolerance and multicultural understanding long before Wikipedia's guidelines were written. His humanity, his willingness to engage and his ability to present the complexity of conflict should be celebrated on Wikipedia even when his actions (like those of his fictional heroes) are mischaracterized and misquoted by a later generation.

Card's choice of book titles like Treason, Xenocide and "Redemption of Columbus" reflect the fact that his writings (both fiction and opinions) never shrinks away from controversial subjects. He revels in describing conflicts and emphasizes the importance of our ability to understand both sides and to eventually form new communities that include "others", foreigners and even aliens. He is a master at portraying the often tragic process required to transition from warring communities on course to annihilate each other to common more tolerant communities that are often attacked as traitors by both sides. Ian's post clearly demonstrates that Card is more than just a proponent of tolerance. He practices tolerance even toward people who in his opinion present a mortal threat to his Mormon community (if they insist on changing it by force or by infiltration).

People who selectively quote Card and Ian out of context, refuse to recognize their right to hold unpopular opinions, misinterpret their messages and then go on to accuse them of bigotry and blatantly try to hurt them are only putting their own bigotry, hypocrisy and destructiveness on display. Card has accurately predicted that this will happen. He even did it in the very context that these bigots choose to omit when they quote him. He has bravely chosen to express his views in spite of that prediction and any Biography that omits this is woefully incomplete.

-

I am not a Mormon.

I have no wish to be associated with or dragged into LGBT related controversies.

There are Wikipedian who are much better qualified than I am to present the opposing points of view that I mention.

I also have strong opinions, some of which are controversial.

I also suffered the consequences of personal attacks directed at me because of my opinions, race, religious beliefs and gender identity.

I often wish I was as brave as Orson Scott Card and Janis Ian. I admire both Card and Ian not only for the brave, eloquent and humane way in which they express their controversial opinions but for their ability to make a difference in the long term and lead social changes that help marginalize the bigotry that they expose.

However, having seen the level of vitriol on some contested Wikipedia talk pages, I am reluctant to engage in pointless discussions about my personal opinions. I prefer to stick to what I can do to improve the future of Wikipedia. If I believe my edits are going to be reversed by activist editors, I have better ways to spend my time than arguing with them.

~