Just bought 10 tickets to Ender's Game.Going to eat at
Chick-fil-A before the movie.
I'll go see the movie twice in support of him!
I think that Orson Scott Card's comments in response to this controversy
were well said.
I haven't seen a movie in a theater in more than 10 years and had not
planned on seeing this one. But, given the actions of the boycott activists and
to strike a blow for freedom of thought and expression, I guess I'll have
to now. Just for good measure, I'll also drop by Chik-fil-a for a sandwich
on the way to the theater.
I'll buy tickets for myself and my friends. It's a wonderful book. I
don't agree with a lot of things those in entertainment say, but I
don't boycott a good movie.
The one and only book of his I have ever read was Seventh Son - which is
basically 1st Nephi with a very few slight changes.I have never seen
any reason to read another of his books and I see no reason to see this movie.
Dang. I wasn't planning on watching this movie until now.
Hadn't planned on attending the movie, but will take the entire family now.
I'm not big on going to movie theaters, but I will take my family to this
movie. If there is merchandise, my children will enjoy an Ender's
Game-themed Christmas at my home in December. When it comes out on Netflix, I
will let it stream constantly.
I will go see Ender's Game for the enjoyment and to make a statement toward
those who do not believe others have a right to disagree with them. Agreeing to
disagree is becoming a lost art.
This is the beauty of living in a free and democratic country.Mr.
Card has the right to express his opinion. Others have the right to act and
boycott Mr. Card's products. People in general may join the boycott,
boycott the boycott, or just ignore the boycott.Personally, I have
never read anything by this gentleman. Therefore, it will easy for me not to
support him economically.
Just a preview of what active LDS and other religious folks can expect as the
tide shifts and the LGBTQ community strikes back against those who don't
like their collective behavior. Other than scripture, I've read
Ender's Game more times than any other book and like others will not only
go to the theater (ugh) to see it, but will encourage everyone I know to do the
same. It ain't gonna be pretty.
"we are free not to subsidize his bigoted lifestyle”The
guy made a comment 23 years ago, yet his entire lifestyle is
'bigoted'. Once again, anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is a
bigot, no questions asked.
I find it so interesting that we who are opposed are not allowed to voice our
opinions/feelings. So, let the homosexuals (as they should be
called)boycott all they want. They seem to forget they are the minority. Those of us who believe marriage is ordained of God, specifically: one male,
one female, are tired and fed up having their rants, parades, leanings,
litigating shoved down our throats. If all were truly tolerant, all would
allow all to voice opinions without backlash, threats, tantrums and the like.
You go Scott! Hang tough!
Is there a word for LGBTs who are phobic of anyone who opposes their lifestyle?
I think we need one.
Ben Kingsley and Harrison Ford...can't be that bad. I'll make it my
Day After Turkey Day Movie.
It is interesting how some people who claim intolerance in others can be quite
intolerant themselves. If you want to get rid of a social divide, this is not
the way to do it. Tell your opinion, your story, but don't try to force and
punish those who differ in opinion from you to change how they think. If your
story hits a chord, people will change. If you have to force people to come
around to your way of thinking, then your way of thinking must be either flawed
or poorly presented.
Opposite effect gonna make this film huge. Can't wait to see it and that
has nothing to do with my position on homosexuality. I'll go see the movie
and listen to some Elton John on the way to the theater.
Not surprising again that Deseret News leaves out pertinent information.
We're getting used to the convenient omissions of this paper. OSC
didn't just make a few remarks, he sits on the board of the National
Organization for Marriage (as does a member of the News' Editorial Advisory
Board.) This organization has spent millions trying to deny fellow
American's civil rights. They have operated in deceptive ways and have lost
many a court battle trying to disobey the laws of States in which they've
campaigned, yet they still refuse to obey the laws. We refuse to give money to a
man who will turn around and use it against our rights. Would you if it were
For a group that calls for tolerance, they sound pretty intolerant.
Ender's Game has nothing whatsoever to say about "LGBT" issues.
And Orson Scott Card has as much right to express an opinion as anyone else.
Those whom this offends, please feel free to miss what promises to an epic film
DanO, You failed to mention that "The law of the State of
California" was changed by a majority vote of the people, but an activist
gay judge and an activist government (refusing to defend the will of the people
as voiced in a legal election) disobeyed the people.Many of those
against gay marriage are not against gay rights -- they support all rights short
of marriage, i.e., right of inheritance, right to work, right to equal housing,
right of visitation, etc.But you are right. Pandora's box is
now open. We'll see what comes next. Two men and a woman; two women and a
man; two men and two women; a man and a boy; first cousins; siblings;
parent-child. What is the rational for denying any of those now? None are any
more unimaginable than homosexual marriage was 50 years ago.
From Ted's Head--Just a preview of what active LDS and other religious
folks can expect as the tide shifts and the LGBTQ community strikes back against
those who don't like their collective behavior. Just a preview?
What makes you think this sort of thing hasn't been going on for some time?
Let them 'strike back'. I guess they're striking back the same
way the Mormons do against those who don't like their collective behavior.
DanO--We refuse to give money to a man who will turn around and use it against
our rights. Would you if it were you?Yep. Planning on it.
DanO--We're getting used to the convenient omissions of this paper. And you read it why?
Once you start boycotting because of feelings on LGBT issues it can't end
well. There are more of heteros then gays, and gays can't reproduce.
Hmmm. I wonder if the LGBT community will now boycott every movie/show Harrison
Ford is in.
At one time the gay commune were persecuted for their lifestyle. They decried
people acting out against them. The whailed if they were descriminated against
for jobs (and they should have screamed). They correctly said, "live and let
live." Now they've adopted the same antics used against
them to go after anyone who doesn't view life as they see it. This makes as
much sense as refusing to listen to Barbra Streisand sing because she's
such a leftist loony. Sad that those once excluded seek to exclude
I'll just politely wait for natural selection to reduce homosexuality to a
point of obscurity again. After all, it happens to be contrary to both
God's law as well as the theory of evolution. Under both belief systems it
is contrary to the "plan".
SSmith, jcobabe and others, if an author wrote opinion pieces saying that
practicing the LDS faith should be illegal, would you go to a movie or buy books
he authored? What if he was on the board of an organization that actively funded
laws to deny you of your rights to practice your faith? It seems like extreme
examples, but Ken Starr in defending Prop 8 argued a majority of citizens should
be allowed to vote on any group's rights, including their First Amendment
rights if they so chose. Those lawyers were paid by the money from the
organization where OSC sits on the board. Would you tolerate that if you were on
the receiving end?
I understand their reasons to boycott the film, but come on folks, he has
already been paid for the film. This boycott is not going to affect Orson Scott
Card's income in any way. What it will do is affect everyone else involved
with this project. Do not hold everyone else involved in the movie responsible
for what he said.
This is in the 'family' section?
Within my family and my circle of friends we often disagree. The topic of
homosexual behavior being sinful and disapproved of by God is one that we have
taken up often. I am glad that every one of us in those circles can freely share
what we believe with each other without condemning those who have differing
opinions. I respect every one of the opinions, even when I disagree. The others
do likewise and we have all come to understand and have empathy for those whose
opinions disagree with ours. That is what civil dialogue is and should be.
Those, like Kalindra above (who doesn't know that Seventh Son is based on
Joseph Smith, not BOM) criticize without knowledge.That said, as a
serious fan of OSCs work, I find it sad that people paint him with a brush so
offensive as "bigot" without knowing anything about him or his work.
Believing scripture to be true does not make one a bigot, it makes one a
believer and defender of that which they believe in. How they treat people is
what determines the kind of person they are. OSC called me after my son died.
Bad guy? Not!
Dan O, almost every time I watch a movie, I'm financially supporting at
least one person who doesn't agree with me in at least one thing. Is this
bad? Kalindra; if you haven't read Ender's Game, and you have not
even a passing interest, why would you go see it, all of the political and
social rhetoric aside?
Good book, and I cannot wait to see the movie. I will see it twice now just
because of this ridiculous boycott.
Boycotts are always silly and actually counterproductive, whether it's
people boycotting this film or refusing to eat at Chick Fil-A because of
supposedly anti-gay pronouncements, or people boycotting Disney World because of
supposedly pro-gay policies. It just calls attention to the product which will
only increase patronage. Just like when the Catholic Legion of Decency would
announce a ban on a particular book, it only increased sales since everyone was
curious about something they may have never heard of before.On the
other hand, sometimes boycotts are started by people who simply want to increase
sales and pretend to be against it.
I have read the book and I can hardly wait for the movie!
Hmmm, and what was Bill Clintons, Obamas, and most others thoughts toward
homosexuality back then- Now we've lost the freedom to even suggest
accountability or morality have a place in the debate.
@Civil --"What is the rational for denying any of those now?
"I'm so glad you asked. :-)There is a
universally recognized legal principle often referred to as the "harm
principle". Roughly, this means that actions which cause harm to others, or
which significantly increase the risk of harm to others, are wrong. Harm is a
valid legal reason for limiting freedoms.Our Federal and State legal
systems have acknowledged -- many times over -- that they have a strong interest
in keeping acts like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy illegal, because of this
"harm principle". The Federal and State courts have
recognized in multiple court decisions that the state does NOT have an interest
in banning homosexuality, because consensual homosexual relations do NOT cause
harm. The courts recognize the distinctions between these acts, even if you
don't.Here's one very brief example. "Lawrence" is
the SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy bans.-- Utah v. Holm
(10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is
actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM
PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an
institution the law protects.'"
John Galt, as a public service. Sometimes, the News actually lets a comment
through that doesn't fit the editorial staff's views. Sadly, they
limit you to 3 posts per story whether or not they actually get posted, so this
is my last.Civil, that's certainly the narrative NOM wants you
to believe, but an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional no matter how many
people vote for it. The Proponents had a chance to defend Prop 8. They put forth
one witness. He not only was a horrible witness for them, he has since recanted
and has now come out for marriage equality. Schwarzenegger, who had twice vetoed
marriage equality, chose not to appeal. That's a power given a governor
when the State is a defendant. There is nothing new in this. He believed that
the 9th would uphold the lower court's ruling (as they did.) Therefore, it
was proper not to seek appeal if he believed the state would continue to lose.
And this is news because? Oh, that's right, it about how dissed some in
the LGBT crowd are over someone's opinion against their chosen lifestyle
(and it is chosen -- the lifestyle, i.e., behavior part).
They can boycott all they want. I'll go see it a hundred times for myself
and another hundred to offset their boycotting.I'm proud to be
heterosexual and I've been waiting a long time for Enders Game to hit the
DanOPost away, there's no limit. Go check a BYU sports story
for proof of this. There are several Ute posters that blabber away... more than
I'm not a big fan or supporter of Hollywood and movies since they seem to
generally purvey and promote immorality, but I will make it a point to attend
I predict this movie will be a blockbuster of epic proportions much like the #1
at Chick Fil A.Count me in. I'll even buy tickets to give
away... popcorn and a drink if you ask me nicely.
Card is an artist; those who only talk of one subject 24/7 are not; and live
boring dull lives.
Argue with Mr. Card all you want, but what is the difference between boycotting
a movie and denying a LGBT person housing or a job? You are attacking
people's well-being or "pursuit of happiness" (property) because
you disagree with them. It is simply persecution for voicing an opinion... very
un-American in my book. If you want to defeat Mr. Card's
ideas, the only REAL way to do that is through dialogue and intelligent debate.
@ John Galt,We have to read the Deseret News, particularly the
comments section. This paper give us the pulse on how the very extreme right
feels about certain issues.This particular article and the response
of its readers is very telling.I read other papers and I have not
seen any reaction yet about this movie. May be the counter-boycott is important
only in Utah. I want to congratulate all of you who will spend extra
money in promoting this movie. It will be good for the economy of the state of
Utah. May not be a good reason, but money is money!
I bet many people here were just fine with calling for a boycott of Tom Hanks on
Jan 17, 2009.
The ultimate irony of this group, again and again, is clearly stated in a quote
from the article that says there is no reason to be "tolerant of the
intolerant". Intolorant according to whom? Us, of course! So, if
to be tolerant, it's not necessary to be tolerant of the intolerant, as
defined by "us", who then do we need to be tolerant of? Those who agree
with us, of course! The problem is...that's not tolerance. The
true virtue of tolerance is turned on its head again and again by those who
merely end up using it as code speak to mean, "You MUST accept my views, but
I have no duty to reciprocate." It really is an ironic
contradicion that is totally lost on most liberal groups. Why do I single out
liberal groups? Because it is THEY who use that word as a defining
characteristic of everything they do. It is utterly hypocritcal. Tolerance, by definition, is tolerating those with whom you disagree, perhaps
completely disagree. And its perfectly fine if you don't want to tolerate
another viewpoint. But please, STOP throwing around the term as if you actually
Why are so many posters actively claiming that the boycott of a movie detracts
from freedom of speech? It in fact is the celebration of it. That's the
whole point of the freedom as well as the right the assemble. The beauty of
free speech is that people can choose to go or not go. There is no need for
censorship. This group is not calling for a ban of the movie, they are not
calling for a ban of the book, they are not calling for the denial of Mr. Card
to publish. They are simply encouraging those of a like mind to not go see the
movie. Interestingly, it is a far more civil and powerful action
than simply banning a movie or a book or a TV show; something Utah theaters,
television stations and bookstores frequently do when the owners disagree with
the content. If you are a conservative person, you should be encouraged that
some people still stand up and speak their opinion. I don't know how
someone could claim to be a conservative person in favor of Constitutional
principles, but abhor the thought of those principles being exercised.
As someone else said, boycotting the movie isn't going to effect
Card's income, but it may very well effect the income of the staff of the
movie. Boycotting the movie also won't change Card's socio-political
stances, so why bother? Seems like a waste of time and effort.
Wow, This author/movie maker surely must be grateful for Utah!How's
this all going elsewhere?
@samhill"given the actions of the boycott activists and to strike a
blow for freedom of thought and expression"A boycott IS freedom
of thought and expression, just like those who commented on the Lucky Charms
story about how they'd stop buying it. @dhsalum"The
guy made a comment 23 years ago, yet his entire lifestyle is
'bigoted'. "He's made more recent comments that
the boycott finds objectionable, this article just didn't note them (like
one of them about rebelling against a gov't that supports same-sex marriage
came from something he wrote a few years ago for this paper).
I find it interesting that people think that boycotting a movie is intolerant.
It is simply an expression of speech. People boycotting for a cause are no
different than people giving support to a cause. If gays don't want to
support the movie because of Card's stance, then fine. If people want to
ingest a high calorie meal from a chicken place on their way to Ender's
Game to support Card's stance, then fine. Who cares? Personally, I think
that chicken restaurant is gross and will skip out on that, but I loved reading
Ender's Game and I'm going to see the movie. I do things because that
is what I enjoy doing, not groveling and doing things to demonstrate fealty to
one special interest or another.
I think it's ironic that those asking for a boycott are giving the movie
more attention and interest than it otherwise would have. Many who had no plans
to see the movie will now go see it, as evidenced by many of the posters in
these comments. What's the old marketing adage..."no publicity is
"bad" publicity". Maybe some of these boycotters should spend more
time in marketing and economics classes than gay rights parades and picketing.
What good is giving free advertising to the very entity you wish to harm or
I'm sick of the intolerance by the Right and the Left. The Left is guilty
on this particular one. The problem with liberals sometimes is that they are
often not liberal (or open minded) themselves. I hope this boycott backfires.
This is why I am tired of "this" community. It is either their way or
the highway. You want to be gay, fine, be gay. But the continual whining and
"coming out" parties are getting really, really old.
I do celebrate the boycott as free speech. It fully exposes the pure hypocrisy
of the pro-homosexual activists, and their followers. They demand tolerance,
acceptance, and endorsement, but refuse to give even tolerance, let alone
acceptance and endorsement. Let them hang themselves in their own
rope (figuratively speaking). Did you know that Chick-fil-a has
amazing fresh-squeezed lemonade?
I find the majority of comments about this to be just plain sad. So much hate.
It reminds me of the ridiculous (in my opinion) news I read yesterday that the
outgoing Iranian president, Ahmadinejad declared that the proudest moment in his
presidency was bringing his absurd notion that the Holocaust was a hoax to the
international stage. I do not happen to be attracted to those of my own gender
but I have PLENTY of other problems and from what I've seen of life so does
everybody else. I guess I must be missing something because when I read the
"love thy neighbor" stuff I fail to see the caveat that says love only
those who are as small minded as you are.
As a homosexual; this is exactly why I refuse to identify myself as gay.All homosexuals DO NOT think alike and gay activists do not represent me
any more than the Klan represents all white people. I get so weary of those who
claim to speak for me when they merely embarrass me with the fact that they
demand tolerance but seldom actually do tolerance.
What a stupid war! Yes, some of us do not support the LGBTQ communities (plural
due to any sexual diversion known to man)and some of us disagree with their
practicing life styles. IN ADDITION, we have a right to our opinions, (true) and
we avoid word wars and boycotts. Oh, please leave things be, drop your crusade,
and put your energies in doing good in the world. You have the law on your side
now; just get on with your lives. Yeh, I want to see Card's movie, and yeh
he has a right to his opinions. Really! Get a life and learn to accept not being
able to change others' choices and opinions. LGBTQs, you don't have
this world to yourselves. Can't believe all this going on over a movie. If
you want to view pro LGBTQ, watch TV sitcoms. Yes, high energy here.
Oh, one more question... What is WRONG with OSC sitting on the Board of the
National Organization for Marriage? Really? It isn't okay that he actually
supports his views with service and commitment and not an immature raging
I am for marriage equality. But the LGBT "thought police" isn't
I am sorry but I am getting so sick and tired of hearing all about the rights
that the guys and what they stand for and then have no tolerance is how others
feel. All of us who believe that marriage if ordained by God have the very same
rights as they have. I am getting so sick of hearing all about the rights of
others but then when we want to express our opinions we get kicked in the but
for saying so. I wanted to see this movie before but now I will go to this movie
several times and along the way I will go and shop at Hobby Lobby and eat lunch
or dinner at Chick fil a
Good for Orson Scott Card! If you speak out today against same sex marriage or
gay rights issues, you are automatically labeled as a bigot. The "gay"
community is outraged anymore to hear any suggestion that their lifestyle
choices are not normal, or that marriage is only between a man and a woman. At a
time when so many have surrendered to popular opinion, Card's willingness
to speak out in movie form is refreshing! I will see "Enders Game", and
encourage others to do so as well.
Movie will be a big hit in New York if I can help it.
I love many who will boycott this movie, but OSC's comments are spot on.
Personally I find the idea of a boycott ridiculously wrong-headed and
hypocritical. During the McCarthy era, when the country was in a frenzy about
the dangers of communism, there was a cruel tendency to blacklist people,
denigate them as deviants, and even call them homosexuals... such labels would
destroy their careers and heap shame upon them.If there was ever a
more ugly time for when conservatives were whipped into an unholy frenzy all for
the sake of protecting society, it was then... and some politicos in the LGBT
now wish to resurrect those times by engaging in like manner. No
thanks. I'll go on being happy with who I am, seeing the movies that
interest me, and avoiding the ridiculous intolerance that occurs by those who
wish to maintain their power even after the courts have ruled whole-heartedly in
In this era of "Enlightenment and Tolerance", we cannot tolerate any
criticisms of the LGBT community--even if it happened 30 YEARS AGO.
I've personally come to the point at which I'm tired of the LGBT
deciding who is and is not worthy of being listened to ... I'll decide for
myself.I am going to be sure to give everyone I know tickets to this movie
as a gift ... a gift that will represent the freedom of thought, freedom of
expression and the freedom to know we still have the right to say what we do or
do not want to accept, regardless of who might bully us through that process.(and PS ... the LGBT are the ones who started the whole "that is
bullying" movement ... no one can even tease another without being accused
of "bullying" ... but this group is perfectly comfortable bullying
anyone who THEY don't like ... ugh!)
I think a boycott of any product, including a movie, is fine. Those on both
sides of various issues have boycotted or supported products based on approval
or disapproval of the creator of the product.
Let's watch it over and over, and over, and over.........
No question about it. We're going to the movie.
@Kalindra, You must have read _The Memory of Earth_. The _Seventh Son_ is more
of the Joseph Smith story.I have read many of OSC's writings on
marriage and the importance of a strong family unit. He has NEVER advocated
harming the gay community. He has only worked to strengthen marriage between a
man and a woman. He has made it clear that he disapproves of acting on
homosexual inclinations, but he has never called for harm to homosexuals.I clearly agree that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman with the
primary purpose of providing a stable environment for raising children. A
strong family is what builds a strong future generation. Many heterosexual
marriages are missing the mark, and that is a shame. Homosexual marriage never
had the intent of building strong future generations. We won't be strong
as a country or world if we continue to de-emphasize strong families of one man,
one woman, and their children.
Ender's Game is a book for adolescents; i imagine the movie will be as
well. Maybe that's why so many readers are sending comments that say,
"Nah, nah, i'm gonna do the opposite a what they want, and crow about
it, too. Cockadoodle doo".
The homosexuals complain about how they want tolerance, but it seems to me they
have no tolerance towards anyone whose views differ from theirs or anyone who
doesn't agree with their lifestyle. Maybe they should look up a little
think called freedom of speech. That author has a right to his opinion.
I am NOT an Orson Scott Card fan for a variety of reasons, but he is a great
writer and with the director and cast of Ender's Game, this movie will
rock. What is so funny is that the gay community is giving the film tons of free
press and media exposure. LOLOLOLOL...And as others have so well pointed out,
intolerance from those who proclaim tolerance is just silly. Get over
I totally support the rights of those who wish to boycott. In fact I applaud it.
It shows homosexual activists for who they really are, HYPOCRITES.
They are people demanding tolerance, acceptance, and endorsement of their
choices, feelings, and behaviors, but are totally unwilling to grant even a
slight amount of tolerance for others, let alone acceptance or endorsement. Time for a fresh Lemonade from Chick-fil-a.
In regards to Card -- Y'all need to remember that Card didn't just
make a few remarks 20 years ago, and he didn't just serve on the board of
NOM.This man, in 2008, actually advocated ARMED INSURRECTION AGAINST
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.He said -- and this is a direct quote:"Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people
who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change
governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary. . . .How long
before married people answer the dictators thus: 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, so it can be
replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me
raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their
turn.:''He didn't say "vote the bums out of
office". He didn't say "we'll get em at the next
election". He specifically said "I WILL ACT TO DESTROY THAT
GOVERNMENT" and "BY WHATEVER MEANS".That is waaaaaaaay
over any reasonable line, folks.
When I see Orson at a family reunion, I will be sure to express my disagreement
with his objectionable statements.
"Maybe they should look up a little think called freedom of speech. That
author has a right to his opinion."The greatest part of our
freedom of speech is that who disagree have just as much right to voice their
disapproval. While I believe this proposed boycott is misguided, it is their
right to announce their plans because of their disapproval for what Mr. Card has
said. We are free to say whatever we want, but let's remember to be mature
enough to accept the consequences and backlash that may come as a result."What is so funny is that the gay community is giving the film tons
of free press and media exposure."Please don't believe that
everyone in the "gay community" is planning on boycotting this film. To
tell you the truth, a large percentage haven't even given much thought to
the topic because they haven't heard about the boycott. I know many gay
friends who still eat at Chik-fil-a, and I know many gay friends who will likely
go see this movie when it hits the theaters.
@ContrariusYour interpretation of Mr Card's comments trouble
me... Also, when the entire section of an author's writings are not
included I am suspicious… I don't believe the tone of his writings
are 'armed rebellion' Stop creating paranoia and inaccurate
judgment of an individual with your cherry-picked quotes and inaccurate
@Brown --"Your interpretation of Mr Card's comments trouble
me... "How would YOU interpret those words??"Also, when the entire section of an author's writings are not
included I am suspicious… "Hey -- we only get 200 words
per post. Blame DN for that, not me."Stop creating paranoia and
inaccurate judgment"Translation: stop posting the facts. ;-)OSC was my favorite author for years. I think he has
written some great things. Nonetheless, he has gone over the line with his
anti-gay polemics -- and the quote I posted was only one example of that
fact.Facts are facts, Brown. I **am** very encouraged by
his latest comments, though. I just found out that he has been quoted in an
article in Entertainment Weekly just this week. I've gotta go buy that, and
see if he said anything interesting in addition to what this DN article has
quoted. I have nothing against people learning from and admitting
their past mistakes, so if he makes any reconciliatory statements I may
re-evaluate my current opinion of him.
I'm tired of the intolerance and nastiness of all those who ask for our
tolerance. I don't care what anyone does in their personal life but I
don't want that lifestyle shoved down my throat or my families throat. I
will see this movie and I in fact will buy tickets for all of my friends,
children and grandchildren. To make things more festive we will go to Chick-Fila
for dinner before. Thank you for bringing the info on this boycott to my
attention. I hadn't even heard of the movie but I can hardly wait to see
Those of you condemning us for boycotting anti-gay establishments are perfectly
happy supporting the boycotts of Disney and many others for their pro-gay
support. How do you spell hypocrite?
Wow, the amount of hate spewing forth in these comments is amazing. It makes me
wonder if people are really paying attention on Sunday or are just showing up as
@Contrarius: Do you really think we readers are ignorant enough to not notice
your inflammatory rant is twisting quotes and inferring that which was not
said?Oh, BTW, thanks DN for allowing Contrarius to use ALL CAPS,
contrary to your policy.Armed insurrection? Nope, he did not say
it. Destroy the Government by any means? Nope, he didn't say that. He takes a stand right from our Declaration of Independence: "That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."However, our Government is destroyed every day. It is destroying
itself, especially when the DA won't defend or enforce laws that are duly
passed - see immigration, DOMA, Prop8, etc. It is the right and responsibility
of the citizens to "destroy" that which is unjust, or is implemented in
an oppressive way: See IRS Tax Code, US Justice System.Kudos to Mr.
Card for putting his volunteerism and time where his mouth is.
The producers of this movie are probably ecstatic about this boycott. Just ask
the Chick Fil A executives.From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
"the fast-food giant took in $4.6 billion in sales in 2012 -- up 14 percent
from the previous year – and opened 96 new stores, four more than in
2011."I didn't eat at Chick Fil A until the boycott and
wasn't planning on seeing this movie until this boycott either.
The opposition to this movie has increased the publicity, and a larger crowd
will see it. In the end, the result will be greater financial returns for the
producers of the movie.
Orson Card needs to cut a check to these groups. They probably just made this
movie a smash at the box office.
To DanO: From now on I refuse to go to Disneyland because they support the
homosexual life style by having a "gay" only day at the park. I will
not spend my money in a place that supports a lifestyle and belief that are
unnatural at best and definitely against the best interests of society. I am
doing this because, based on your post, you feel that it is OK to not give money
to an organization which will turn around and use it against common sense.THIS IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. IT IS A MORAL AND SOCIAL ISSUE.
These people are obviously not content with equal rights, they want revenge!
I find the objections to the boycott hilarious. Mormons are told to not go to
any R rated movie regardless of content. So what's the big deal here?
Nothing like a boycott to lead people to a "let's stick it to those
pesky gays" movement.
@J-TX --"Armed insurrection? Nope, he did not say it. Destroy
the Government by any means? Nope, he didn't say that. "I
quoted his exact words. In fact, his comments were originally published right
here in the DN in 2008, as part of a longer op-ed piece -- so you can check
those words for yourself if you don't believe me.He said:"no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made
possible or necessary.""any government that attempts to
change it is my mortal enemy. ""I will act to destroy that
government and bring it down"We have a word for people who
declare the US government to be their "mortal enemey" and who feel they
need to "act to destroy that government". And it isn't
a nice word, either.@IMAPatriot2 --"a lifestyle and
belief that are unnatural at best"Homosexual behaviors can be
found in many non-human species out in nature. Therefore, they are by definition
"natural"."and definitely against the best interests of
society."How? How does homosexuality damage society? Please be
I would not call it a boycott, just people choosing to watch what they want. I
never boycotted Brokeback Mountain - I just chose not to watch it because I was
not interested. If the gay community does not want to see Ender's game
it's no different than choosing not to watch Teletubbies.
Just funny to read that a VERY small group of whiners who would most likely NOT
attend the particular movie anyway announce their short-sighted intention of
boycotting it. This will most likely result in many MORE people attending.
lolChalk me up for a family pass and a chik-a-filet feast.
@ContrariusI say the same things you mentioned Card said. I know
others with same thoughts and feelings. Is that wrong? No. I can talk about
those things all I want, that is what is so great about this country.
Unfortunately, people like you wish to squash those thoughts just like society
has done in regards to saying how cool it would be to see a plane or the white
house blow up. I know, I'll now be under scrutiny by NSA for saying my
thoughts on a message board on the internet. That's ok, if they want to
knock me off, let them try. How do you think the Revolutionary War
started? It started with people getting tired of the government (British) and
laws and taxes and whatnot. If they could not talk about kicking the Brits out
of the land, when would that have happened? The present would be far different
than it is today.
@J-TXBecause when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who
are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change
governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary. - Orson Scott
Card"Destroy the Government by any means? Nope, he didn't
say that. "He literally says whatever means is made possible or
@DanO"We refuse to give money to a man who will turn around and
use it against our rights. Would you if it were you?"Ummmm...all
I will say is "April 15th" - follow THAT money! Then retract your
The only official document that I know that lists civil rights is the US
Constitution with its accompanying Amendments. The word marriage isn't
mentioned once in any of those documents. Marriage isn't a civil right, it
is a civil responsibility. It is a contract. There is no harm in making that
contract as strong as possible. No one is saying that you can't love your
partner, or even qualify for legal rights and protections like visitation and
next of kin. But don't screw with the traditional family. When the
organization of the family unit fails, so follows society in general. Homosexuality isn't new, it has been present for millennia and nations
that embrace it ultimately fail. Darwin's Natural Selection and Theory of
Evolution prove that same gender attraction is not natural or normal. It is a
psychological disease, not a physical normality or the gene would have been
irradiated a long time ago.We can argue that same-gender marriages
are good for kids, but I think its irrefutable that opposite-gender parents,
where both parents are biological and contribute their unique gender skills and
characteristics is what is BEST in a family.
Funny how some people think that just because a court rules a certain way, that
it is the correct ruling. I know the words "wickedness" and
"corrupt" is foreign to certain types of people. But that is what is
happening to this country. We're turning to hedonism, as evidenced by
these court rulings. You know hedonism, that thing that destroyed Rome and lots
of other nations. Our pattern of self-destruction is right before us in the
history of this world. But we're too focused on our own carnal addictions
to see it.And yes, I'll go see the movie now. Wasn't planning
on it before now.
It's our right and freedom to express our opinions so go ahead and boycott
and I'll go see the movie twice . And on a side note I happen to know
that Disneyland and Disney world In fact do not have a specific gay days set
aside . It is the Gay community that has set aside certain days to celebrate Gay
days and one if the places they choose to go among others just happens to be
Disney. It is not promoted or sponsored by Disney .
@carabaoU -- "just like society has done in regards to saying
how cool it would be to see a plane or the white house blow up."Yeah, because those words sound SO rational.Right."How do you think the Revolutionary War started?"DingDingDing!Right. WARS get started when people talk about
government being their "mortal enemy" and "destroying that
government" "by any means necessary".That's called
"incitement to violence".That's why we need to be
concerned when public figures start talking that way.@NT --"who would most likely NOT attend the particular movie anyway" On the contrary.The group that started the boycott is GEEKS
Out. Geeks are a target audience for sf.I'm a HUGE fantasy and
science fiction fan myself. And as I mentioned previously, OSC was my favorite
author for years.I don't know whether I'll go see this
movie or not. I'm very tempted -- Ender's Game was my favorite book
for a long time -- but I am also VERY uncomfortable with the thought of
financially supporting Card. I have seen Card speak in person, I have read many
of his anti-gay rants, I KNOW how homophobic the guy is.
I don't care if people choose a homosexual lifestyle. I do care if they
continually shove it at me. When Ellen de Generis finally settled down to being
a comedian and stopped trying to make a point, she became a household word to be
respected, not a nut case. Compare that to the folks who insist on mincing
about, dying their hair odd colors, talking nonstop about being homosexual, and
introducing "wives or husbands" over and over and over. As has been
said, whoever you are, go quietly into the world doing good instead of stirring
up trouble.I haven't even read the book "Ender's
Game", but I will certainly see the movie and not even wait until it hits
the cheap theaters as I usually do. We are all entitled to our opinions.
RE: Contrariuses “You [the LGBT community] must understand that not all
people accept your lifestyle.”i.e...,Kenyan Cardinal John
Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi and president of the Kenyan Episcopal Conference,
joined other African leaders in open dismissal of President Obama’s
urging to accept same-sex marriage.“Those people who have
already ruined their society…let them not become our teachers to tell us
where to go,” said Njue in response to Obama’s statements promoting
same-sex marriage. “I think we need to act according to our own traditions
and our faiths.”
Will a boycott of this movie by gays and lesbians make a spit in the wind of
difference in ticket sales? Probably not. On the other hand, if a movie promoted
same sex marriage and all traditional marriage proponents boycotted it, that
would put the movie right in the toilet. My movie dollars are limited and I
carefully evaluate what I plan to see. I hadn't planned on going to see
this movie, but might just do so to thumb my nose at political correctness. In
fact, since I don't particularly approve of many aspects of Hollywood
lifestyle, maybe I should boycott all movies that include gays,lesbians,
bisexuals, shacked up couples or adulterers in their cast or script.Word of advice to the boycott folks: When you are asking to have your
viewpoint heard and recognized by the American public, remember that everybody
else is entitled to the same privilege, even those who disagree with you. So
don't be offended if the movie you like is boycotted by those who
don't share your priorities. .
This is ridiculous. First, Mr. Card is entitled to his opinions. Just as the
protesters are free to make their choices, so is Mr. Card entitled to his
choices. Those choices are in no way demeaning to others. Second, This movie nor
the novel it is coming from have anything to do with gay rights, pro or con. Its
just an entertaining science fiction story illustrating the resilience and
ingenuity of the characters who are mostly children and teens.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. If the LGBTQ community truly wants to be
seen as tolerant, instead of whiney/adolescent, maybe they should look at
history and examine successes...the successes like the Civil Rights movement in
the 60's. Civil disobedience. The only difference between now and the
60's, is that there are more Black people than LGBTQ people. This will
evidently fail, and ultimately prove counterproductive. Was the
whole Chick-fil-A fiasco not evidence enough that this style of boycott is
simply ineffective? Seems like common sense to me.These are changing
times. The LGBTQ movement needs to stop oversimplifying issues. Straight people
are not (all) bigots. Likewise, LGBTQ people are not all intolerant/like-minded.
I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, nor do I support gay marriage. It
is based on a religious belief, one that all the boycotts and namecalling in the
world will not change. That said, I listen to Elton John because he is a
talented musician, not because he is gay. I think Neil Patrick Harris is a
phenomenal actor, regardless of his sexual orientation. And my problem with
Disney is not their stance on homosexuality, it is their continuing erosion of
important family values. I also understand that not all gay people agree with
the GLBTQAUJKLMEIEIO blowhards, so when I refer to "them," it is limited
in scope to the offending individuals.At first, "they"
advocated against the belief that homosexuality was a "mental illness."
Then, "they" advocated for tolerance. Next, "they" advocated
for "equal" rights. And now, "they" advocate for acceptance.
They still call it tolerance. However, true tolerance isn't enough; they
demand to be accepted by all. They rail against people and churches based on
their beliefs, because they are different than the ones they will allow people
to have. This is not tolerance. Tolerance is allowing someone to have a
different viewpoint than you.
@BCA: Mormons are counseled to avoid movies that are rated "R" by the
MPAA _BECAUSE_ of the content, not "regardless" of it. In case you
aren't familiar with the MPAA ratings system, it is based on the content of
the movie (objectionable language, sexual content, adult themes, nudity,
violence). Repeatedly subjecting the human mind to objectionable content
desensitizes it. A desensitized mind becomes skewed as to "right" and
"wrong" -- look into the history of your average serial killer, rapist,
etc., and you will see a history of progressive desensitization, beginning with
cruelty to animals, viewing pornography, etc. We believe that anything that
encourages or promotes such desensitizing is morally wrong.
I did a unit on this with my sophomores and really enjoyed this book, even
though the genre wasn't one that I thought I'd find appealing.
I'm interested to see how it's been adapted cinematically and will see
it for that reason, if for none other.
Why some have to publicize their intolerance by grabbing at headlines that they
are not going to patronize a particular establishment (food service,
entertainment, etc) is beyond me.When my family and I make a choice
of where we will spend our time/money/resource, we do not feel compelled to have
a parade or make a public spectacle of it. And, although I don't "get
it" as to why others feel a need for that level of self-affirmation, I
won't attempt to quell their right to do so.
@JimE --"hedonism, that thing that destroyed Rome and lots of
other nations."Hedonism did NOT destroy Rome, sorry. Both Roman
and Greek civilizations encouraged homosexual relations -- and both
civilizations survived for roughly 1000 years each.I'd love to
hear about any other nations that you believe were desroyed by hedonism. Please
be specific.@ExecutorIoh --"Marriage isn't a
civil right"The Supreme Court says otherwise.From
Loving v Virginia:"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil
rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v.
Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190
(1888).""Darwin's Natural Selection and Theory of
Evolution prove that same gender attraction is not natural or normal."Actually, homosexual behaviors can be found in many non-human species
out in nature. Therefore, it is by definition "natural".Darwin himself recognized the fundamentals of group selection, kin selection,
and behavioral ecology in general. Those concepts can be applied to homosexual
behaviors in nature. Read up on them.@sharrona --Ummmm....so what? Many other Christian leaders have spoken out in SUPPORT of
gay marriage. And many Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay
I thought Ender's Game was a cool book till the end. The whole I feel bad
for protecting my race, way of life, and world (even though it was all just a
big misunderstanding that Ender had nothing to do with) seemed really mellow
dramatic. Ender took responsibility when he should have just taken it for what
it is. His efforts to reestablish the race he helped nearly annihilate was
honorable though but his response was kind of silly.
Yeah, I'm all confused now...am I supposed to be tolerant of people and
their ideas and values that are different than mine or not?
I have to disagree with this one. If the movie itself was a slam on the gay
community I could understand it, but this makes no sense. Let's engage his
political views in the political arena, not the local movie theater.
With regards to his members in the National Organization of Marriage. As some
say they have spent millions to take away people's civil rights. No, they
don't. They are only promoting traditional marriage and they are
protecting people's right to conscience and religion. National
Organization of Marriage and Orson Scott Card are the "New Liberal".
Get used to it.
'Yeah, I'm all confused now...am I supposed to be tolerant of people
and their ideas and values that are different than mine or not?'Yes, you are and that is not what this boycott is about. It's about equal
access to a basic right, marriage. No one on the LGBT side is advocating the end
of marriage between a man and woman. And they are not advocating the end of a
religion's right to structure their religion or ceremonies as they see fit.
So Catholics, of which I am a 'retired' member, can deny the right of
women to the priesthood or not marry homosexual couples. And the LDS can deny
non-LDS family members the opportunity to see their children married; again I am
in that club. It isn't the responsibility of homosexuals to subsidize the
religious beliefs of a particular group. They just want an equal opportunity to
get married. No skin of you nose, just be fair.
@Contrarius:"I have read many of his anti-gay rants, I KNOW how
homophobic the guy is."OK. Can you post them here for those of
us who have not seen them and then we will know about his anti-gay rants and his
homophobia. He wasn't saying words that would get him censored, was he?
What!!! And boycott Harrison Ford?!! Are you kidding?!! :)
Re: "Card is an anti-gay activist and quotes from an article he wrote about
homosexuality in 1990."By the same standard, President Obama is
an anti-gay activist. His speeches from as recently as 18 months ago were almost
exactly the same as Mr. Card's.So, when will LGBT activists
begin boycotting the President?
So what Geeks Out is saying is that it is not okay for Card to be himself and
that he must be punished for having a different opinion than them. Interesting.
Then it must be a good film. Will look forward to seeing it.
Once again, the Gay Rights bashers are overstepping. This happened with
Chik-FIl-A, and their stores were packed with customers. I waited 45 minutes to
place an order, and had a great time!! The feeling at that store was one of
comeraderie and of being united in a cause - the cause of free speech!!!Our country is founded on this principle, as well as the principle of
Freedom of Religion. Both are fundamental, and both are at odds with the gay
propoganda machine. Too bad "tolerance" is a one-way street
for the gay activists.....
Does anyone else find it hilarious that choosing to see or not see a sci-fi
popcorn flick is now tantamount to making a serious social statement? Ooh, how
courageous! I'm going/not going to buy a ticket to Ender's Game! Maybe
I'll even put a bumper sticker on my car!Boycotting movies or
anything else because of the political positions of one of the parties involved
in the making of the movie is ludicrous. If "Ender's Game" flops or
becomes a massive hit, society's attitudes towards gay marriage will not be
affected one way or the other. You may as well go to the library, find all
Card's books, and shake your fist at them.
@dhsalum;The comment quoted was 23 years ago; he is currently head
of NOM and has very recently published articles against same-sex couples having
the right to marry.I won't be going to the movie.I
love that so many of you are spending your hard-earned money to support bigots.
Good luck 'splainin yourselves to your maker when you meet him.@mbenfield;Guess what, we're tired of having our rights voted
away. So what, we're a minority, that doesn't give you the right to
deny us the governmental benefits you, yourself enjoy. Including marriage.@Civil;You fail to understand that the Constitution applies
to ALL Americans and that YOU do not have the right to "vote" to deny
those rights to Americans you disagree with.@ShaunMcC;Believing scripture to be true doesn't make a bigot, no. But working to
deny someone the same benefits and rights he enjoys does.@OnlyInUtah;You're going to spend thousands on the movie? I
seriously doubt it.
@IMAPatriot2;It is a civil rights issue, a moral issue (fighting
bigotry is a moral issue) and a social issue (equality is a social issue).@ExecutorIoh;"Perfect is the enemy of good".GrammaG says:"Those choices are in no way demeaning to
others. " No? Why don't you try walking in our shoes for a day
and then say that.Bigotry is out in force today.
@ RanchHandDisagreement is not bigotry. You should try to practice
a little of the "tolerance" you so loudly demand from others.In another 10 years when we are all talking about the destruction of religious
freedom, and rights are being voted away from religious people, I hope you will
stand just as tall in defense of others' rights and against religious
I guess my family is seeing this movie now.
Let's boycott "Finding Dory" because Ellen, a lesbian, is the voice
of the main character.
RanchHand - Another problem with this limp form of *cough* "protest"
*cough* is that you're directing it at one of hundreds of people involved
with making the film, each of whom has his/her own political opinions, and many
of whom have a stake in its success. I don't know if Harrison Ford has any
kind of back-end deal on this one, but he's not exactly known for his
conservative politics. The director, stars, producer, studio executives . . most
are more than likely on your side of the gay marriage issue. The $10 you
won't spend on the movie is also not going into their pockets.So, from a practical, logical POV, the plot to blow the box-office chances of
"Ender's Game" is ineffectual at best, self-defeating at worst.
Now, if you're only avoiding the movie as an internal statement to make
yourself feel noble, then have at it. Just don't pretend like you're
having any real, tangible, positive effect on your cause.
What is it to be "intolerant"? According to Merriam-Webster, one sense
of the word is "unwilling to grant or share social, political, or
professional rights." Gay people are not trying to take away the right of
straight couples to marry, but opponents of gay marriage are unwilling to grant
same-sex couples the right to marry. So which side is the intolerant one?If this is a religious issue, then why the push to enshrine religious
beliefs in civil law? Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world?" and
Christians strive "be be in the world, but not of the world," but what
could be more "of the world" than getting involved in ballot initiatives
and political squabbles?Can't people live their religion unless
its doctrine is the law of the land?
@RedWings;Do you understand what tolerant is?I tolerate
religious people, even though I disagree with them. Religious people,
interfering in the lives of others because they disagree with those others is
not tolerance. Is it intolerant to refuse to see a movie based on a book
written by an author who uses his position to promote bigotry? No, it
isn't. He's welcome to his views, but when he uses his position, and
money and views to support discrimination, there is nothing to tolerate.I will fight for your religious freedom to believe anything you want,
and to live YOUR life as YOU see fit. I will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent
you from using your religious views to infringe upon the rights of others. That
is tolerance. Tolerance: I'll tolerate you doing what I find
abhorrent (religion) and you tolerate me doing what you find abhorrent (marrying
my partner).Fighting bigotry and discrimination is not
"intolerant" (nor is a boycott; religious people use them all the time).
I used to think that the people of Utah were the kindest and most loving and
accepting of people in the United States, but then something happened. The
Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune allowed readers to post comments to the
articles on their online editions. I soon discovered what my neighbors are
really thinking, even though they smile at me in public. There is a lot of
hostility toward anyone who doesn't fit in with the expected norm here. Both sides of the issue have a right to express their opinions, but
let's think about what harm those opinions may cause. Your words or actions
alone may not have an impact on an individual, but when combined by the constant
daily and hourly reminders that some may get that remind them that they are not
loved, your words then do contribute to some devastating results.I
hope to never be one who contributes to one losing faith in humanity because of
insensitive words or actions. All of our neighbors need love and support.
Let's stop this cultural war and work towards being an example of the most
tolerant and loving state in the nation.
I have personally made it a matter to boycott Tom Hanks sense his comment about
LDS being unAmerican. Has it hurt him? NO! But I feel better within myself. I
have no problem with the gays boycotting this show. I will do my part by
supporting it by going and also by buying a ticket for someone else to go (I
have some family birthdays coming up and now I know what to get them presents)
and maybe even seeing it twice. I will also buy a ticket and just not go! To
counteract against one "protestor" from not going. I just wonder what
all the actors and workers on the show that are pro gay marriage are going to
feel about this? We ALL know that MOST of Hollywood are pro gay. I have been a
fan of the Ender Books for years! Have been looking for them to be made into
movies for years............ no way am I going to miss them now!
@GiuseppeG"I supposed to be tolerant of people and their ideas and
values that are different than mine or not?"Take the Westboro
Baptist Church which is disliked by most people. They have a right to do the
hateful things they do... but one can reasonably expect people who are otherwise
tolerant to be rather intolerant (as far as expressing vocal disagreement with
is concerned) when it comes to their message. In other words, tolerate
everything except intolerance. Now... here's the difficult part. What
constitutes intolerance? Something like the KKK okay, they're a hate group,
that one's easy. At some point each individual draws their line somewhere
and that's where the divide on this comes in. A lot of people see this
boycott as intolerance, others see it as not tolerating intolerance on the other
end. @Tekakaromatagi"They are only promoting traditional
marriage and they are protecting people's right to conscience and
religion."Most on the same-sex marriage side believes in letting
churches marry who they will. Your side refuses to let same-sex marriages that
some churches support be allowed by the gov't. I do not see this the way
I will definitely support this movie and any other individual who is personally
attacked because of their conservative beliefs. Unbelievable to me how
intolerant and bigoted the LGBT community is. The rest of us need to stop
worrying about appearing intolerant and Stand For What is Right! I am telling
everyone I know to go see this movie, buy the DVD, watch it on demand...and
hoping it will have record support. I will definitely support this movie and any
other individual who is personally attacked because of their conservative
beliefs. We are with you Mr Card!@Ranchhand The end goal of the
LGBT community is not to have the civil right to be married; they can have all
the civil rights of marriage with a Civil Union but they don't wish to
obtain that "status". The next item on their agenda is to force their
"marriage" to be recognized and performed in all religions, including
those who teach that practicing homosexuality is against God's law. (Oh,
and the right to adopt from religious adoption agencies.) Not an issue of civil
rights… (the bogus no fed benefits line it just that bogus.)
I enjoyed Ender's Game in print and look forward to seeing it on the big
screen. I don't go to movies much, but this one will certainly get me into
the theater. It will be a big plus to be able to thumb the nose at those who
have been bullying traditional marriage supporters for way too long. Maybe
I'll go twice. And take some friends. And buy a couple copies of the DVD.
And maybe give away some copies of the book. And some ancillary items as
Christmas presents for the grandkids. And talk it up among my friends and
family. And, yes, stop by Chick-fil-A en route!
Scott Card is a good guy, and accomplished writer, and one who backs his beliefs
with action and involvement. He's a big boy and prepared to roll with the
consequences of his words and actions. Because he believes marriage is between
one man and one woman does not mean he hates or mistreats gays. He does
not...nor do most conscientious, well-informed members of the LDS church. I have
gay friends whom I respect and love...while not condoning nor accepting their
behavior. I don't condemn them for gay activism...including boycotting a
movie. I, and many members of my family, have read and enjoyed most of
OSC's writings, including Ender's Game. We look forward to the movie.
I'm sorry some friends will miss out on what promises to be an enjoyable
experience. I'm guessing the net effect of the boycott will be positive for
the movie and for OSC.
Civil (5:37 pm 7/9): "Pandora's box is now open. We'll see what
comes next... first cousins... None are any more unimaginable than homosexual
marriage was 50 years ago."You're too late. First cousin
marriages are legal in 25 states, including Utah (since 1996). It seems some
things are imaginable.SocialModFiscalCon: "I'll just
politely wait for natural selection to reduce homosexuality to a point of
obscurity again."Don't hold your breath. Homosexuality
seems to be a remarkably persistent trait, biologically speaking, especially
since the phenotype does not typically directly pass genes to offspring. There
may be other evolutionary mechanisms at play beyond superficial ideas of
It is really sad to read so many comments from people reveling in their dislike
of gays (eat at Chik fila! Buy ten tickets!) I wonder if they if they think it
appropriate for folk to publicly celebrate their disdain of the LDS community?
I'll go see the movie, because I loved the book, and I can separate the art
from the artist. That said, I consider Mr. Card a repulsive bigot. He would like
to see criminal laws imposed against homosexuals, and one of my adult sons is
gay. Card wants to send my son to prison for having been born that way? Really?
"It is really sad to read so many comments from people reveling in their
dislike of gays (eat at Chik fila! Buy ten tickets!) I wonder if they if they
think it appropriate for folk to publicly celebrate their disdain of the LDS
community?"@LRB Kind of like "The Book of Mormon"
@redwingsSo disagreement is not bigotry but when some supporters of
the LGBT community speak out its intolerance? You do realize how many companies
those that appose gay rights boycott right? I actually have no
problem with those that appose or support gay rights boycotting my issue is when
those that appose gay rights go beyond using their free speech and actually
codify their bigotry into the laws as with prop 8 and amendment 3.
@pac man Yes, just like that, we had dozens of articles and
thousands of comments blasting those actions by the same people upset that some
in the LGBT community refuse to see this movie. People should have the right to
object and speak out against Mr Card and many of these posters reveling in their
disdain for the LGBT community just like many should have and did with the book
of Mormon musical
I just finished visiting the Topography of Terror Museum in Berlin. Very
interesting museum about how the SS and Gestapo began and how they were used to
suppress any dissenting voice to the Nazi party ideology.One of the
early actions against the Jews was enforced boycotts against any business owned
and operated by Jews. Additionally, those in the Democratic and Communist
parties were publicly humiliated and oppressed, and finally jailed and
killed.Freedom of speech is in danger when we see 'political
correctness' enforced via boycotts. I don't like or agree
with what Card said, but I am bothered by the modern-day thought
police--including those in the LGBT community.
Thankfully, there is nothing illegal about boycotting. It just doesn't
sound like a very fun thing to do- always focusing on the negative of something.
A silly waste of time. That's not really good for mental health. And
actually missing out on a great movie to boot. Thankfully we can still legally
speak our minds. You just have to have thick skin if people don't like what
you said and also realize daddy NSA is watching. So mind your Ps and Qs.To Contrarius, I love the comment that homosexuality is found in nature
so it's "natural". Did you know my dogs' favorite treat is
Actually, the quotes are from 2008. By why let facts get in the way of a claim
@O'really --"Did you know my dogs' favorite treat is
goose poop?"And many dogs love horse poop -- also dead stinky
rotten stuff. So what?"Natural" doesn't
mean either good or bad. It just *is*. It's a fact of -- you guessed it --
nature.btw -- it's also false to claim that there is no
evolutionary value in homosexual behavior. We may not always know what the value
IS, but it is obviously valuable in many cases. For instance, roughly 1/4 of ALL
black swan pairs are male-male pairs. And roughly 90% of ALL sexual interactions
in giraffes are male-male. These behaviors obviously have value in those species
-- otherwise, they wouldn't be so prominent.@JapanCougar --"One of the early actions against the Jews was enforced
boycotts"You're talking apples and oranges here."ENFORCED boycotts" are a completely different kettle of fish than
"VOLUNTARY boycotts".Many anti-gay folks, including some of
those commenting here on the DN comments boards, have declared that they will no
longer purchase Lucky Charms -- or even Kellogg's products in general --
because of their support for gay rights. How is that any different than what
pro-gay folks are advocating here?
@spring streetReally? When was the public LDS boycott of "Book
of Mormon the Musical" announced. I must have missed it.
As a conservative and one who opposes homosexual behavior, I support the GLBT
community's right to boycott this movie, with which they disagree. They
are well within their rights to do so.
Really? When was the public LDS boycott of "Book of Mormon the Musical"
announced. I must have missed it.==============@1978
Exactly. There wasn't one.
The author doesn't care about the boycott. He's been paid. This will
only affect the owners of movie theaters and studios...I would imagine many of
those employed by them are in the LGBT community.It goes to show
that fake indignation throws logic out the window.
This issue will only get uglier. It was never truly intended to be a matter of
fairness, but a way to force people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle into
accepting it; especially certain religious groups - including LDS, Catholics and
others.When ever someone simply states that they personally
don't go along with GLBT ideals, they are immediately condemned as haters,
bigots - often vandalized, or at least threatened. We've seen such
responses more than once. Okay, so it's legal in several
states, but now, the discussion is to remove tax free status of any traditional
religious group which refuses to change it's doctrine.
The LDS church did not call for boycotts that is true, however the far right has
a long history of calling for boycotts not only against this musical but many
companies including Starbucks Disney, jcpenney etc etc... again I do not have a
problem with them doing so that is their right to not support these companies,,
the line is crossed when people codify their hatred towards others in the form
of laws such as prop 8, doma and amendment 3
I do think however that free speech issues are involved here. I'm not
talking about Orson Scott Card's free speech or any one else's in the
article. I'm talking about the comments posted for the article. I'm seeing more and more postings that lean toward making anti-gay civil
dialogue becoming "illegal". If a person actually disapproves of
homosexual behavior, but talks in a civil manner, votes his conscience, and
tries in a civil manner to persuade people to his/her way of thinking, and is
not inciting violence, his rights to free speech are just as valid as anyone
else's. There really are some who are trying to be civil and express
sincere concerns without inciting violence or hatred.It is when
someone does make a call for violence or acts violently that it becomes
inappropriate. But, I would hate to see a nation in which we could not express
our opinions because they are unpopular. That is what the first amendment is
about. Unfortunately, this issue seems to be starting to move in the direction
of curtailing anti-gay speech. Just my opinion.
@very concernedSo you seem to be able to post freely and without out
censor so please tell us exactly how your free speech is being taken away on
these threads? You get to use your free speech to express yourself and even
refute others comments and guess what others get to do the same thing without
you screaming censorship.
I am tired of the 3% trying to tell the 97% how to live. Maybe we need to
boycott the advertisers of the shows that try and forced their live style on us.
I will be taking a large group!!!!!!!
Who is proposing to make "anti-gay civil dialogue illegal"? I
haven't seen any such proposals. In my state - Maryland - the same-sex
marriage law makes it clear that people can say whatever they want, and churches
are not required to perform any marriage ceremony.
Orson Scott Card, July 24, 2008, this paper, "Because when government is the
enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful
marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made
possible or necessary. ... Biological imperatives trump laws. American
government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution
is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it
is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."And
since NOM is still calling for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as
between a man and a woman, the point is hardly moot.
I support this boycott. I wholeheartedly encourage people to punish themselves
by denying themselves the enjoyment of a movie by an exceptional author. How
dare he have views that are not 100 percent aligned with that of bigoted gay
people! In fact, they are not taking this far enough. I advise that
they deny themselves use of any theater that shows the movie, and movie by
anyone in the movie or anyone that worked on the movie, any products shown in
the movie or sold by the theaters that showed the movie, any visits to the state
or country where the movie was made, any products sold in the country where the
movie was made, and any association with people who exist on the planet where
the movie was made.They'll show their opposition what happens
to themselves if other people do not endorse and approve of their homosexual
@suan --"I am tired of the 3% trying to tell the 97% how to
live." Suan, Mormons make up less than **2%** of the US
population. Do you really want to start making arguments based on group
size??Furthermore, more than 50% of the US population now SUPPORTS
gay marriage -- according to multiple national polls. Again --
arguments based on group size will only work AGAINST you.
@suantwo problems with that logic, first the the overwhelming
majority of Americans including the LDS church support the 3 percent having
basic civil rights and the majority of Americans support their right to marry.
second thing the far right has a long long history of boycotting
such shows and business's to no effect but please by all means keep trying.
Re: "Bigotry is out in force today."It sure is! LGBT bigots
are in full flower, showing their hate for anyone who dares to disagree with
them.And, BTW, they are the ones that fail to understand that the
Constitution applies to all Americans and that they don't have the right to
combine with a tiny minority of Americans to extend new, unknown Constitutional
rights to American factions, simply because they happen to like them.That's the very essence of the corruption that has destroyed the rule of
law in any nation that has tolerates it.If LGBT activists believe
they actually have a case, they should be honest in making it to voters,
changing the law -- legislatively, as the Constitution requires -- to
accommodate their practices.Rather than using current LGBT tactics
-- bullying, boycotting, corrupting the legal system, using unethical and
dishonest approaches to illegally force others to bend to their will.Those tactics ALWAYS backfire, in the end.
Well, in a way I suppose it's a good thing if all the people who want to
back this bigot go see his movie. They'll have less money to donate to
hate groups like the National Organization for (attacking non-traditional)
I wasn't going to comment on this, but then I had this thought. Two men
write and produce a place which mocks a faith I hold dear and uses vulgarity and
ridicule to elicit laughs from crowds that include the first lady of this
country. What does the church do? Boycott? Attack? Unleash terrorist attacks on
the White House? No. The church buys ads in the playbill, encouraging people to
read the book. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The liberals of this country
have a chance to show their tolerance and high mindedness towards a film which
doesn't mock the gay lifestyle at all. Can they rise above their emotions
and exercise a modicum of maturity and discretion? No. They reveal their true
colors. They are rabid in their desire to attack and destroy all I hold sacred
Speaking of boycotts --As a board member of NOM, Card himself
clearly believes that boycotts are acceptable forms of action.After
all, the National Organization of Marriage is currently running TWO official
boycott campaigns.One is called "Dump Starbucks" and the
other is called "Dump General Mills". Both have links on
NOM's home page, and both boycott sites specifically state: "a project
of the National Organization for Marriage."So......If boycotts are acceptable to Card and NOM, why aren't they acceptable to
For those of you who say you'll see the movie, make it a family event, and
eat at Chik-a-Fila on the way is really showing your true colors. Better get
off your self-righteous pedestal before it breaks.
The equating of boycotts to attacks (personal or otherwise), terrorism, and
civil disobedience demonstrate how grossly reactionary the majority of DN
readers are towards events that don't meet their own preferences. How sad.
Regarding "new, unknown Constitutional rights."The
Constitution does not specify all the rights of the people. Many of our
forefathers were opposed to including a bill of rights, because they knew it
would be impossible to list them all, and they feared that those rights not
listed would be lost. As James Wilson warned in 1787, "If the enumeration is
not complete, everything not expressly mentioned will be presumed to be
purposely omitted."The 9th Amendment to the Constitution
confirms that the Constitution does not list all of the rights of the people:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Just because a right is not named in the Constitution does not mean that it is
new, or unknown, or that it does not exist.
@very concerned;Actually, I couldn't care less if you
disapprove of gays or not; that's your business, and you're welcome to
believe whatever you want.Where I take issue is that you seem to
think it is okay to use your beliefs to "vote" on whether or not I get
the same rights you do. You don't have that right. You can tolerate us
living lives that you disapprove of and I can tolerate your living a life that I
disapprove of. I would never vote to deny you your right to believe whatever
you want; why is it that you think your beliefs trump the individual rights of
other Americans such that you get to encode them into law, forcing those other
Americans to live by your beliefs?@suan;We "3%"
are pretty darn tired of the 97% dictating how we can live. We're
Americans and that means individual freedom, which seems to have escaped you.
Boycotts always amuse me. One person who is upset will certainly do whatever he
or she is inclined to do. It is the truly hateful (read intolerant) who urge,
nay, threaten, others to follow their lead.Like most commercial
boycotts this will hardly be a blip on the radar (or profits) of what promises
to be a truly great film!Hysterical, isn't it?
The LGBT "thought police" needs to be careful what they wish for. Like
the Chick-fil-A hoopla, this might have the opposite effect.
RE: Contrariuser, Many other Christian leaders have spoken out in SUPPORT of
gay marriage. And many Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay
weddings.According to LifeSite News, homosexuality is illegal in 38
African nations, including Senegal.Kenya’s Deputy President,
William Ruto. Speaking at a Catholic Church, Ruto said, “Those who believe
in other things, that is their business…We believe in God."Bible believing Christians DO NOT support gay marriage.
The truth hurts.
@Contrariusier (Contrarius) and Alt134:I know what Card said. I have
read most of what he said and has written on the subject. I merely object to the
twisting of his words that Contrarius did. Card said CHANGE
government by whatever means necessary, not DESTROY it by whatever means
necessary, as Contrarius stated.Card did not SAY he was for armed
insurrection, as implied by Contrarius.By all accounts, Card is
choosing "to destroy that government and bring it down" by being active
in the community and the political and social process and by using his popular
pulpit in exactly the same way other celebrities do. Have you seen him promote
violence, pick up a gun, suggest mistreatment of Gays? NO.But
because he holds strong opinions ant they do not correlate to yours, you feel
the need to demonize him and twist his words, to be INTOLERANT of his RIGHTS,
the very image of hypocrisy.
@sharrona --"According to LifeSite News, homosexuality is
illegal in 38 African nations, including Senegal."-- And
polygamy is still practiced in many African countries.-- And female
mutilation is still practiced in many African countries.-- And
adultery is still punishable by stoning in some African countries.What's your point?"Bible believing Christians DO NOT
support gay marriage."Many Bible-believing Christians disagree
with you.Here's some of the Christian denominations that
already perform gay marriages and/or bless same-sex unions, or allow each
diocese or priest/pastor to decide for themselves:--Anglican Church
of Canada--Episcopal Church of US--Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic,
and Liberal Catholic Churches--Church of Sweden--Church of
Denmark--Church of Iceland--Danish Church of Argentina--Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada--United Church of Canada--Protestant Church of Germany--Protestant Church of the Netherlands--Church of Norway--Evangelical Lutheran Church of America--Presbyterian Church USA--Quakers -- in several countries--United
Church of Christ--Canadian Unitarian Council--Unitarian Universalist
Association--Metropolitan Community Church--Mennonite Church of the
Netherlands--Affirming Pentecostal Church International--Swedenborgian Church of North America--Uniting Church of Australia--United Church of Canada--New Apostolic Church--An LDS offshoot
-- Community of Christ
@J-TX --"Card said CHANGE government by whatever means
necessary, not DESTROY it by whatever means necessary"I quoted
Card's words exactly. It is easy to Google his op-ed piece, if anyone wants
to verify what he said. "Whatever means necessary" is pretty clear."Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people
who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change
governments, BY WHATEVER MEANS IS MADE POSSIBLE OR NECESSARY....How long before
married people answer the dictators thus: 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, so it can be
replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me
raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their
turn."There's really not an adequate excuse for that kind
of over-the-top polemic -- and, oddly enough, I don't think I've ever
seen him retract it or apologize for its insurrectionist tone, either.
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security."-The Declaration of
IndependenceWe are just about there....
I haven't read all of the comments, so I may be repeating, but having been
a while since we've had real hype about a movie (outside of normal
promotion efforts), I think this hype will only increase the box office take of
this film. If a majority of people condemn a movie, it usually flops, but when
a small minority condemns a movie, their numbers aren't missed but the hype
drives other interest in the film.By the way, early on in the
comments someone said they had only read ONE BOOK by OSC -- Seventh Son. Then
they characterize the book as a retelling of First Nephi. Sorry, but the book
based on the storyline of First Nephi would have been "The Memory of
Earth". I never liked Seventh Son much. If THAT was the only OSC
you've read then you need to try something else. Why not Ender's Game
and Speaker for the Dead? Then read Hart's Hope and imagine the book made
into a movie by Peter Jackson.
About 25 years ago when I was a little kid, we were in the car and my (straight)
parents asked where we wanted to eat. We picked a restaurant we would go to
often and then my parents started talking quietly in the front seat before my
dad informed us we would not be going to that restaurant. We argued and asked
why not, he replied, "they don't hire gay people there and that is
wrong". I was just a little kid but I remember that. I don't remember
whether or not I knew what gay meant but I knew it was wrong to treat people
differently because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, religious
beliefs, etc. For all of you who are saying that you will see this movie and
buy your friends and family members tickets, not because you are interested in
the moive but because those pesky gays are boycotting it, please think of the
message you are sending to your children/family members/friends. There is no
hate like hating in the name of (your) god.
@Contrarius and Contariusier (same dude- thereby cheating on the DN comment
rules)OK so something else found in nature is that some species
copulate with multiple partners- within days or hours. Does that make it OK for
humans to do so, too? Should my husband go off and mate with every woman
he's attracted to? UNlike the animal kingdom, humans have the
ability to reason and to control their "natural", animal-like instincts.
We have to do this or all would be chaos. Just because you have an urge that is
similar to something found in monkeys or penguins doesn't mean it's OK
to act on it.
Enders Game - Great book! Was almost forced into reading it, but loved it. And
there are some pretty obvious homosexual overtones in there too.
I suppose the LGBT will hate me twice. I will see "Ender's Game,"
and I approve of the Second Amendment to the point of obtaining a CCW permit.To those who are intolerant, tolerance is not in their vocabulary. They
ask us for tolerance. Many I know do not dislike LGBT people. They just do not
approve of the strident animosity toward those who see life differently.I hope the best for all, including those who want to miss what looks to
be a darn good movie due to intolerance.
I would recommend a reading of Orson Scott Card's entire essay quoted in
the article. You don't have to agree with him to understand that he is an
intelligent, articulate defender of God's plan of happiness, and a student
of societal consequence. He has no hatred for gay people, and I respect his
refusal to be silenced by the those who would slander him with a definition for
which ironically, they themselves perfectly qualify. "Bigotry: someone who,
as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or
intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, RELIGION, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other
@NCPantherTraditional marriage supporters do not see the support of
their beliefs as "hating in the name of their god." They see it as
actively supporting their god. Please think of the message you send when you say
that people who legitimately believe in (and promote) traditional marriage are
simply "hating in the name of [their] god."On the opposite
side of the spectrum, same-sex marriage supporters undoubtedly believe that
supporting same-sex marriage is right, and what their god wants them to do. The
real problem with this whole debate is that neither side can seem to grasp the
fact that people legitimately *believe* in what they support, whether it is
same-sex marriage, or traditional marriage.As for the people that
will see Ender's Game solely because it is being boycotted...the logic
there is off. This is essentially an anti-anti-traditional marriage boycott.
This is childish, and wrong.If you have read the book, go see it. If
you want to see the movie, go see it. If you haven't read it/don't
want to see it...don't. Personally, I can't wait. I loved the book.
I have read a number of OSC's books. More than once he has written in
characters with homosexual leanings. These characters are respectfully written
as regular sympathetic characters, not pariahs or in any negative way. "The
Memory of Earth" comes to mind.OSC is not an intellectual
lackey. He studies and knows the issues, never touting a party line or
religious stance simply because someone else is doing it. I respect his
opinions even where I might disagree.
RE: Contrariuser, What's your point? "Bible believing Christians DO
NOT support gay marriage. "Many[NON]Bible-believing Christians disagree with
you.The Bible teaches Pastors(shepherds),Bishops(overseers) and
Elders should be men married to a women, not a man married to a man or a women
married to a woman.A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
teach;(1 Tim 3:2)…and appoint elders in every town as I
directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and
his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or
NCPanther, I find your story and analogy interesting. With all due respect, I
see it quite differently. I plan to see this movie, and pay full price in the
theater (rather than wait for a DVD rental, as I usually do). And the message I
would be sending my kids is that I want to support the victim (Orson Scott Card)
in this hate-based boycott, just as your father had the victims of
discrimination in mind in making his decision.
Contrariuserermid-state, TN@O'really --"Does
that make it OK for humans to do so, too?"Nope. As
I've stated before -- "natural" doesn't mean either
"right" or "wrong". It simply **is**. I offer it simply in
rebuttal to the people who claim that homosexuality is unnatural. In fact, it is
NOT unnatural. And, in fact, it DOES have survival/selective value, even though
it is not directly reproductive. But, again, survival/selective value
doesn't make something "right" or "wrong", either.@J-TX --"We are just about there...."Don't exaggerate.We are nowhere near the upheaval that
preceded the Civil War, or the riots and unrest of the 60s. No National Guard
troops have been called out to protect gay couples as they enter into
courthouses to get married.You do reinforce an important point,
though. Specifically: every time someone like Card starts spouting craziness
like "any government that attempts to change it is **my mortal enemy**. I
will act to **destroy that government and bring it down**," other people
feel more empowered to talk and think in insurrectionist terms as well. Speech like this only encourages more people to act on their hatred.
C'mon, Contrariuserer. We all know that OSC isn't crazy. Did you
really take what he said seriously?
@teeoh --"I want to support the victim (Orson Scott Card) in
this hate-based boycott"How is this boycott different from the
boycotts beings carried on by NOM?@sharrona --"The
Bible teaches Pastors(shepherds),Bishops(overseers) and Elders should be men
married to a women, not a man married to a man or a women married to a
woman."According to YOUR interpretation of the Bible.Many Christians disagree with your view.And, oddly enough, their
beliefs are every bit as valid as yours."A bishop then must be
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach;(1 Tim 3:2)"This is a good
illustration of how different translations will say different things.For instance, here's the NIV version: "Now the overseer is to be
above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable,
hospitable, able to teach."-- IOW, it is focusing on FAITHFULNESS, not
the specific gender of his spouse.Since yours mentions
"bishops", I'll also point out that Catholic bishops should
actually have NO spouses. ;-)Yup, strangely enough -- many people of
differing denominations actually do disagree on what the Bible tells them to do!
I am more inclined to say that Orson Scott Card is not a victim of the LGBT
community - he is merely "reaping that which had sowed". You can go
through life and believe that you can say and do anything because "it is
what I strongly believe it or I have the right to free speech" - but - it
will always come back to haunt you. (Remember the words of Janis Joplin in the
Kris Kristopherson son "Me and Bobby McGee" "Freedom's just
another word for nothing left to lose" - can't say history didn't
warn you Mr. Card.
@ContrariusI don't think this boycotts and the NOM boycotts are
very different. They both have a huge gap between the product and the producer.
For example, I'll buy cheerios (despite the General Mills boycott), but
I'll pass on Lucky Charms with gay pride rainbow marshmallows. I'll
listen to Elton John music, but not if a song of his directly advocated
something I disagree with (I'm not aware of any of his songs like that).
In other words, it makes more sense to target a PRODUCT than the PRODUCER of
that product.In this case, I'm choosing to support OSC, in
part, as a way of showing what a stupid boycott this is. I don't make this
decision based on any animosity toward the group calling for the boycott. I
make this decision based on the idiocy of their decision make a pro gay
statement by boycotting a movie about aliens attacking Earth. @TA1I didn't say OSC was a victim of the LGBT community. He
is the victim (target) in this boycott. Regardless of which side you take, that
is an accurate statement.
I listen to the music of Elton John, even though I disagree with his life-style.
All you LGBT's who hyperventilate just becaus some author you
don't like has a movie made from a book he wrote, need to CHILL OUT! Truth
be told, all you folks are doing is guarenteing a larger turnout at the theater.
Even angry publicity is still free publicity. Sign a pledge not to see the
movie? Your right to request that of others, but a joke in the end. I suspect
that some who had not read the novel for whatever reason will read it now, just
to see what the hub-bub it about. You would have been better off just yawing and
acting like the movie is no big deal. Instead, you are increasing the
public's awareness of Card, which will benefit him far more than it will
All Science fiction is social satire, and some people cannot take satire that
hits home. As one reveiwer told a Soviet diplomat who was unhappy with the
depiction of the treachery of the Cylon Empire in the cinematic release of
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA in 1978: "If the horns fit, wear them."
Beck to Harline, I didn't have any mention of marriage eqality in my post.
I was simply stating, in my opintion, people that are "going to the movie
and buying tickets for their family and friends" because some folks in the
LGBT community are boycotting, need to think of what kind of message may be
sent. The message my father sent to us was that even though people might be
different, and think differently, and believe differently, doesn't mean
that we treat them differently. I personally think if people want to see the
movie then go see it, if not don't. Which is sounds like you and I agree
on. And on the whole god thing, if you feel like your god needs your support
then go for it, as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.
Teeoh, if that is the message you want to send, I think that is fine (not that
my approval is needed), I was simply asking people to think about the message
they are sending. I personally don't care either way, I don't have a
real stake in this. "Victim" seems to be a strong word in the
particular situation, though.
@baddog;Pretty amusing that you claim we're not
"tolerant". You don't know that that means. Tolerance does NOT
vote on whether other Americans get the same rights you do. Tolerance does NOT
go around trying to make amendments forbidding other Americans from doing what
you do. Tolerance DOES live and let live.@MJM522;It is
interesting that you highlighted religion and didn't highlight sexual
orientation."Bigotry: someone who, as a result of their
prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the
basis of a person's ethnicity, RELIGION, national origin, gender, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics".Card's actions fit quite well within that definition you
printed.@Beck to Harline;"Traditional marriage"
proponents need to realize that allowing gays to marry does NOT change
"traditional" marriages.@teeoh;I find it
interesting that you can turn Card, one who persecutes the LGBT community into a
I had no plans of watching the movie, but I will now. The lgbt community are
hypocrites. They demand tolerence, but will give none back.
RE: Contrariuser, here’s the NIV version: "Now the overseer is to be
above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable,
hospitable, able to teach. "not the specific gender of his spouse.
“This is a good illustration of how different translations will say
different things.”True, When you isolate the text and
don’t read Greek ,i.e..Let the deacons be the
husbands=(arrhen,male) of one wife(*gyne) ruling their ‘Children’
and their own houses well. (1 Tim 3:12),… appoint
elders=(presbyterian) in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above
reproach, the husband of one *wife and his ‘Children’ are believers
and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.(Titus 1:5-6)The Pastor/Elder’s requirement for leading a church, is to have
order in his home, which speaks volumes. The typical householder of Greco-Roman
society. The male wife and children.In Mt 19:5, Jesus refers to
(Gen 1:28). "Be fruitful and multiply” Marriage, isn't merely a
moral union of compatible soulmates but a real union meant ideally for children.
What all of you don't realize is that this is just another corporate scheme
to increasemovie revenue while generating more media attention. All at the
expense of us, "we the people".
Yeah, I have to agree with those who believe that we all have a right to
respectfully disagree with those whose ideas of morality are contrary to our
own. I hadn't planned on seeing Ender's Game, but with the intolerant
and bigoted views of the LGBT community towards straight folks, I think I will
take all my family and friends to see it.
Re: Meckofahess"Yeah, I have to agree with those who believe
that we all have a right to respectfully disagree with those whose ideas of
morality are contrary to our own."As we all should, if we truly
are good Christians and law-abiding Americans."I hadn't
planned on seeing Ender's Game, but with the intolerant and bigoted views
of the LGBT community towards straight folks,"Well, so much for
adding you to the list of people with common sense. You do understand how your
second statement completely undermines your first one, right?
The words being thrown around such as homophobic, bigots etc are very strong
words. How about we learn to accept different opinions and call it a day.
Remember we live in a country that allows diversity. We have taken to the
extremes within groups that chose to not follow tradition. There are always
unintended consequences for extreme behavior. Hate does nothing but destroy.
Lets run a little balance sheet here:OS Card: enjoys a legal
marriage to the spouse of his choice, recognized in every state in the country
as well as almost every foreign country;LGBT: have been fighting,
and have still not fully achieved marriage equality in most states and many
countriesOS Card: Has actively participated and made public
statements to the effect that if the US government supports marriage equality,
righteous citizens should throw off that government by any means necessary, even
if just as a matter of principle;LGBT: have never done anything to
remove, diminish, or detract from OS Card's enjoyment of marriage and all
that entails; LGBT have never said anything disparaging about OS Card's
marriage or sexuality, and have certainly never threatened revolution over the
rights Card enjoys.So how is it NOT disingenuous and hypocritical
for Card to call for "tolerance" and imply that LGBT are
"intolerant" by not wanting to go see the film made by an avowed enemy
of their civil rights?
@sharrona --"True, When you isolate the text and don’t
read Greek"And for some strange reason you think that you read
Greek better than the NIV translators do???LOL!!"In
Mt 19:5, Jesus refers to (Gen 1:28). 'Be fruitful and
multiply'"And yet Paul told us that it is better to remain
single than to marry.Hmmm.-----And to get
back on topic --There's an article in the NYT on the movie and
the boycott this morning. Here's two interesting paragraphs from it:"In a statement, Lionsgate, Summit’s corporate parent, noted
that it has released movies with gay themes, including 'The Perks of Being
a Wallflower,' and has long recognized same-sex unions and domestic
partnerships in its own corporate benefits programs. It said the company does
not agree with Mr. Card's personal views or those of the National
Organization for Marriage."The simple fact is that neither the
underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or
form," the statement said. It also said Lionsgate expects to host a benefit
premiere for some gay-related cause in connection with 'Ender's
The GLBT's have their own modern-day version of the "Danites." Any
word of any activity from them regarding this movie?
I hope it's not news to anyone that the LGBT community is actually the most
intolerant of any group out there. The right to disagree with them is inherent
in our very DNA - they have that same right. The problem is when they attempt to
label others as "evil" for disagreeing with them. Kind of an interesting
dilemma...of their own creation.
It's McCarthyism at its best. Go ahead and boycott. No one cares and more
people will go and see the movie. Talk about stupid. Having an opinion
differing from homosexuals is not against the law, yet. And still within our
First Amendment rights. Any by the way, just because people think that
homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean they hate or are against peoples
rights. I don't care if people choose to live together outside of normal
heterosexual marriage. That's their choice. I don't agree with it
but it is their choice. Anyone can enter into a contractual agreement with
another party. Marriage isn't a requirement to make such a contract. I
personally know many homosexuals. I don't know a one that has been
discriminated against in housing, jobs, who they live with, etc.
I decided to boycott Orson Scott Card a long time ago, shortly after reading
Xenocide, the third installment in the series Ender's Game started, but it
had nothing to do with Card's attitude towards gays; I simply thought
Xenocide was an extremely poorly written book, and decided I didn't want to
subject myself to that kind of torture any more. It's probably been at
least fifteen years since I've read anything by Card. But I've
started wondering if maybe I should give Card a chance again. I will be
watching the Ender's Game movie.
The LGBT community has developed an attitude that anyone that has an opinion
that differs from theirs is homophobic and is in the wrong. Card's opinion
on same sex marriage is that his personal opinion and belief. I have a similar
opinion. I think that marriage should be a religious affair and each religion
may accept or require that marriage ceremonies be solemnized separately within
each separate religion. The states should provide for Civil unions to provide
the legal benefits for spouses of any unions. This would allow the religious
and conservative individuals to continue with their idea of marriage between a
man and woman with the religious community and provide the financial benefits in
the secular community.The LGBT community represent about 4-5% of the
population. The idea that the remainder of the population should bend to their
will in all things is absurd.If some conservatives were to try and
obtain a marriage license in California for a Polygamous group and for a
siblings, where current law outlaws it then either these become legal marriages,
the same as same-sex, or the idea that the California law can define marriage
between a man and woman is validated.
Vaughn J posted:=The LGBT community represent about 4-5% of the
population. The idea that the=remainder of the population should bend to
their will in all things is absurd.Vaughn, you made some interesting
points in the first paragraph of your post, but I feel compelled to conclude
that this second paragraph here is flawed. Blacks were also a minority in 1864;
a similar line of reasoning would have argued against the Thirteenth Amendment
and returned blacks to slavery after the Civil War. Democratic nations do
follow the will of the majority most of the time, but they also are often
characterized by having laws that protect minorities.=If some
conservatives were to try and obtain a marriage license in California=for
a Polygamous group and for a siblings, where current law outlaws it then=either these become legal marriages, the same as same-sex, or the idea that
the=California law can define marriage between a man and woman is
validated.I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here in this
third paragraph. If you meant to say that polygamists have as much right to
marry as gay couples do, I think you've got a point.
@Vaughn J --"The LGBT community represent about 4-5% of the
population."The LDS community represents less than 2% of the US
population.Do you REALLY want to start making arguments based on
community size?According to multiple national polls, more than 50%
of the voting public now supports gay marriage. Again -- do you really want to
start making arguments based on percentages?As for polygamy and
incest -- the state has a vested interest in keeping both of these types of
relationships illegal, because of the risks of harm that go along with both
practices. In contrast, consensual homosexual marriages cause no harm to anyone
-- and, therefore, the state has no interest in preventing them.@Flashback --"It's McCarthyism at its best."Card has been a board member of NOM for years. NOM currently has two boycotts
running -- one against General Mills, and the other against Starbucks.If Card thinks that boycotts are acceptable, why don't you?
Contrariusest posted:=As for polygamy and incest -- the state has a
vested interest in keeping both=of these types of relationships illegal,
because of the risks of harm that go=along with both practices. In
contrast, consensual homosexual marriages cause=no harm to anyone -- and,
therefore, the state has no interest in preventing=them.First
off, I'm not arguing for legalizing incest. I don't know how that got
into the discussion. But what risk of harm is there in legalizing marriage of
consensual polygamous triples, where all parties are adults? Granted divorce
might be thornier, but if the triple signs a document detailing exactly what
would happen in the case of a divorce, who are we to say they can't get