re Mike R on 8/5"The solution is simple. Boycott every business
where people with whom you disagree work. Tell those business owners that you
will take your business elsewhere."Not quite. A list was
recently published in the DN listing companies with religious roots. Carls Jr as
well In & out were on the list. I'm sorry but I'm not
going to give up a good Cheeseburger over anothers belief in the
supernatural.... That would be petty. I do avoid BK & McD as the last 2
times I've eaten @ each I've gotten real sick.
It is not a two-way street. To object to Card's homophobia is not bigotry.
I do not hate Card (or Mormonism or anything Mormons believe) because he is what
he is. I do not _like_ his anti-gay rhetoric and I disagree with him vigorously
that America should be overthrown if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. I
am not a bigot because I disagree with someone or some thing. I don't like
Marxism. That doesn't make me a bigot. I also don't like beets and
Sean Hannity. Card may be a Mormon in good standing, but that's no reason
to side with him for his extremely virulent hatred and profound lack of
compassion for how 9% of our population lives their lives. The fact is, Card was
and still is rabidly anti-gay (and vocally so). For myself, Card will never
receive a dime from me for anything. I'm tired of his bullying (and I went
to college with him--he was the same then as now: a bully).
To clarify things from a legal perspective: The Supreme Court decision
declining to overturn the U.S. District Court's ruling in Hollingsworth on
standing grounds does not establish a Constitutional right to "marry the
person of your choice." The ruling, technically speaking, only applies to
the district in which it was decided. Other federal appellate circuit courts
are not bound by the decision. The underlying question will still have to be
litigated.For myself, I would prefer that we reason together, and
set our best arguments against each other in deliberative debate, than that we
try to further our politics by attacking other people's livelihoods.
Boycotts may be legal, but boycotting someone because you don't like his
opinion isn't exactly "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." It violates the spirit, if not the
letter, of free speech and democratic discourse.Otherwise, we may
well wind up dividing ourselves into tribes, all of us dealing only with people
who think exactly like we do. Maybe it's time for that. I hope not.
I can't express how much I disagree with those posters who actually think
anyone who posts a responsible opinion are entitled to being publicly harassed
and castigated for their opinion. This is NOT what this country stands for.
Some here seem to think because Mr. Card is opposed to same sex marriage that he
must therefore be someone's project. Let's put the shoe on the other
foot and let the howling begin. Cries of homophobia and hate mongering would
resonate all the way from city hall down to the 7-11 parking lot. We'd
never hear the end of it. So why are we going after Mr. Card because he happens
to have an opposing opinion? This isn't right and we are
supposed to be better than this.
I really don't understand those of you who think that allowing all
Americans to have legally-sanctioned marriages is going to result in the
nullification of the 1st Amendment (forcing churches to perform ceremonies they
don't wish to). Do you really think that those who believe in
full citizenship for all would be willing to sacrifice our most fundamental
freedoms? You believe it would be possible to elect enough members of Congress
to get such a proposal on a nationwide ballot? You believe that a majority of
people in a sufficient number of states would actually vote to overturn the 1st
Amendment? And then you believe it would be possible to elect a President who
would enforce it? You believe the American people would stand for that?There are so many checks and balances between legalizing marriage for
all and forcing churches to do anything that your fears are ablsolutely
@JoeCapitalist2Your fears that the US government will force churches
to marry same-sex couples are unfounded. Let go of them.The US
government cannot force a church to marry two members of different faiths, if
the church disapproves. The US government cannot force the Catholic Church to
marry a person who has previously been divorced. The US government cannot force
the LDS Church to provide a temple sealing to two members if the church deems
them unworthy. The US government cannot force a church to marry two members of
different races if the church disapproves. This has been settled law for a very
long time.I hope you're less fearful of these things now.
@UtahBlueDevil:"Government did not invent, not create the institution
of marriage."Our state governments did. And there is a function
and purpose for it. The government has an interest in the well-being of its
citizens. That includes making sure, as near as possible, that children are
reared and nurtured through their formative years and into adulthood to assure
they will be good citizens. The family unit with a mom and a dad is the best
method to accomplish this aim."People 'connecting'
today, to create informal 'families' unfortunately has become a norm,
where living together is an accepted alternative to marriage..."Living together without marriage can certainly meet the objectives of a
government provided children that are brought into the relationship are properly
cared for. Marriage has an added incentive to keep the family together when
"No shirt, no shoes, no service"Legal enough, right? If a patron announces that they steal stuff, does the proprietor have to
let them stay in the store until they actually steal something?If a
patron starts speaking graphically of sexual exploits, does the store or
restaurant owner have to let them stay and continue to serve them? Or if they
insult the store or it's owner, or workers, does the owner have the right
to ask them to leave and refuse to serve them, or do they have to serve in
silence.If not being dressed is grounds for denying service, so is
sexual behavior and talk. If patrons don't want to be turned away, leave
sexuality out of the conversation, and don't insult the store owner for
his/her beliefs.In reality, most the cases that have gone to court,
the businesses were "sexuality baited" to further the homosexual agenda.
There are plenty of choices of stores, facilities, etc. for those of all beliefs
and persuasions. But what the activists want is control over others.
They seek to control their speech, their property, and even their thoughts.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTWe don't "Hate"
anybody.12:37 p.m. Aug. 5, 2013===========Really?How about Pres. Obama?Plenty of hate radio
parroted here.Democrats?Yes, them too.Hispanics?Yes, even those who here legally get cased.Shall I
@JoeCapitalist2Its there, there are those moderate people who
don't approve of extreme tactics. You just don't see it because the
news won't report it.
"There is no fundamental right that prevents same-sex marriage from being
legislated against. "---The Constitution says that
we gay couples have the right to expect to be treated equally by our government
as they treat straight couples; so there is a "fundamental right"
preventing same-sex marriage being legislated against.@2-bits;You're welcome to not support our "agenda'. Equal
treatment by our government is such an abhorrent agenda anyway, right?@Machado;If you "abhor" our bigotry, do you also
"abhor" the bigotry on your side? No? That is what we call
"hypocritical" and you should go check out the words of Jesus about
hypocrites. The bible contains many references against hypocrisy and only a
very few against homosexuality. I expect you'll avoid any business that
has a bigot in it.Card reaps what he sows. He has the right to not
"approve of immorality"; he does NOT have the right to prevent people
from being "immoral" (that's Satan's plan, right).
Re: "So folowing your argument...if I own a soda shop and I refuse to serve
you beer because I think that drinking alcohol is wrong, I am being
un-Christian???"No, but if you own a soda shop and sell soda to
everybody else who comes in, is it Christian of you to refuse to sell soda to
those whose morals or hair cut or nose you don't happen to approve of?Re: "I must abandon my principles and perform a ceremony for
something that goes against my core beliefs just because you think I should have
to???"Selling soda or cake or flowers is a ceremony?If your core beliefs are Christian, should you follow the teachings of
Christ?"In everything, treat others as you would want them to
treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."In
Marriage between a man ad a woman is legal in all 50 States. "Marriage"
between a man and a woman who was given the body of a man by our Creator is not
considered to be "marriage except is a very few States. There is no
Constitutional right to marry; therefore, marriage is left to the States. A
marriage license is issued by the State, not by the federal government. If there
is that Constitutional right, cite the article and the section.According to the California Constitution, the voters in California can modify
the State Constitution at he ballot box. The Federal Government cannot modify
the Constitution of the State of California. The voters in California voted to
change their Constitution. A federal judge mettled and decreed that he had the
right to overturn the will of the people.Yes, I've repeated
myself. There are too many people who think that a federal judge can do
whatever he wants. Not in this Country - even if he's a gay activist.
@RAB --"Justify mob behavior all you want, it still amounts to
intimidating people for voicing their views. "Pro-gay-rights
views don't kill people. Anti-gay-rights views do. Big difference.As for mob behavior -- just look at what's happening in Russia right
now.@Rikitikitavi --"Gays are incredibly
promiscuous."If you're worried about promiscuity, then you
should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages **stable, committed**
relationships.I am always amazed by the people who decry the
supposed promiscuity of homosexuals -- and then turn around and try to deny
those same homosexuals the tools they need to encourage commitment and monogamy.
Can you see the obvious Catch-22 there?@Christian --"A minister who follows the God of the Bible..."Ministers
have religious protection. Private business owners do not.This has
been the law since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. It is not anything
new."Same issue for any business owner, who has strong religious
convictions, who is asked to give support services for the ceremony."Nope.How would you feel if any business owner had a strong
religious conviction against serving Mormons?
@Contrarius:"Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people.
Anti-gay views do. BIG difference." How do anti-gay views kill people?
Lots of people are stating anti-views against something or someone, and it
isn't killing anyone.I think that what you are saying is that
if someone who was gay was murdered for being gay, e.g. Matthew Sheppard, then
everyone who has some sort of a view that disagrees with your agenda, should
therefore be restricted, not be tolerated, etc. (Florists, wedding
photographers, diversity directors, psychologists, pastors?). That is group
justice and no, I don't agree with that.Going a little off
topic, last week I asked you to provide some examples of OSC's anti-gay
rants. You did. Thank you. What you had was pretty tame. No epithets, no
threats of violence, etc. (Look up Perez Hilton's rant against Miss
California as a good example of a phobic anti-rant). The fact that you had to
explain why OSC's comments were bad indicates that you probably felt that
they were pretty tame too.
@jsf --"Aren't many women in monogamous relationships
subject to those same harms?"The issue is the increased risk of
harm, not the certainty of harm.For instance: I may drive drunk and
get home safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be
legalized. ALL driving presents some risks (like all marriage), but drunk
driving conveys a significant INCREASE in risk (like polygamy)."This would include polygamy as long as it isn't formalized."Right.1. Informal polygamy is nearly impossible to prosecute
anyway.2. Formalizing polygamy acts to trap the women and children.
It's a lot harder for women to leave abusive relationships once legal and
financial entanglements get formalized."Your association of harm
in all polygamist relationships is a bigoted generalization."No.
I am recognizing the fact that polygamy **significantly increases risk**, not
claiming that every polygamous relationship is harmful.@RAB --"Card wants to protect the fundamental right...."NOM
is currently sponsoring two boycotts. If they can boycott, why can't anyone
else?"Many of you speak as if there are THOUSANDS of voices
speaking out in opposition to Card’s views."Yup. A
majority of US voters now support gay marriage.
Because of this bigotry, I personally refuse to support any individual or
business that I know has gay leanings. It's not that I had their
"gayness" but I abhor their bigotry. I wish others would join in
returning fire with fire. Do not support anybody or anything gay until they are
willing to rid themselves of bigotry and hatred.
@Mike --"'Gay Marriage' is not listed. "The Supreme Court itself has declared that marriage is a right, in multiple
court decisions. "From Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):
"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). "Oddly
enough, I trust SCOTUS to know more about both the Constitution and our laws
than you do."A gay federal judge decided that he didn't
accept the will of the people. "This is not actually what
happened. Here's the basic facts:1. The Calif Supreme Court
**invalidated** Prop 8 when it was called Prop 22.2. In 2009 it was
"upheld" only in a procedural sense. It was declared an
"amendment" rather than a "revision". The court COULDN'T
really vote on its constitutionality, because it had **become** the constitution
for that state.3. The district said "unconstitutional" -- 20104. The circuit court said "unconstitutional, and also you have no
standing." The Calif SC then insisted the defendants did have standing --
20125. The SCOTUS trial said again "you have no standing" -- 2013
FYI - Orson Scott Card is a Democrat.Many of us know you don't
have to cow tow the partyline 100% on all things, all the time.
@Mike RichardsIn the Constitution, our government's powers are
enumerated, but they cannot supercede or be contradictory to the Bill of Rights.
Enumerated rights cannot deny or disparage other rights. (See the Ninth
Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")Marriage has been found, in around 20 decisions by SCOTUS, to be a
fundamental right. It can't be denied to people who are "similarly
situated" to people who can marry, and gays and lesbians have been found to
be similarly situated, an important legal phrase. Polygamists are NOT similarly
situated, and would have to argue their case before the courts independently
GZE: I said no such thing. Stop making things up.Lightbearer: So
folowing your argument...if I own a soda shop and I refuse to serve you beer
because I think that drinking alcohol is wrong, I am being un-Christian??? I
must abandon my principles and perform a ceremony for something that goes
against my core beliefs just because you think I should have to???That is exactly where this is all going. Once gay marriage becomes legal
across this country, everyone (including Mormon temples) will be dragged into
court if they refuse to marry gays or do anything associated with weddings that
exclude them somehow. If anyone thinks the militant pro-gay crowd will stop at
anything less, they are fooling themselves.
A minister who follows the God of the Bible believes that performing a marriage
for 2 men or 2 women is a mockery of God. He wouldn't want to give that
service. Same issue for any business owner, who has strong religious
convictions, who is asked to give support services for the ceremony. It is not
about what people think, it is about what God says is right and what is
wrong.I don't expect the atheists and agnostics to be
enlightened to this concept because they simply cannot relate to it. It would be
nice if they at least tried to be a little understanding, but so far, they only
mock and insult (it's called bigotry).I know it baffles many,
that people give up some of their business and income, to do what they believe
is right. If money and the praise of men are your Gods, then you would surely do
whatever it takes to get money and praise, with no regard to what is right and
wrong. Just don't expect the praise of those of us with religious
convictions for doing that which is abominable.
Card wants to protect the fundamental right to not be forced to approve of
immorality. Gay activists use mob action to hurt those who do not support their
behavior.Freedom of speech is the right to voice an opinion without
being punished. Gays have the same right. They do not however, have right to try
to hurt people. Bigots always justify hurting their victim as "reaping what
they sow".Conservatives are about preserving correct
principles—not about attacking people, as Liberals do by calling marriage
supporters homophobes.Many of you speak as if there are THOUSANDS of
voices speaking out in opposition to Card’s views. Justify mob behavior
all you want, it still amounts to intimidating people for voicing their views.
Gays are not slaves and are not merely seeking rights. They want to
force all Americans to support, endorse, and approve of gay behavior and
forcibly adopt their view of what marriage is. There is nothing high ground
about that.@ContrariusI’m sure you would like it if
opposition to government endorsed gay behavior were the same as opposition
against gay people. But you are only fooling 50 percent of the people.
By Kate Heartfield OTTAWA ; ...The demographic argument is a great
big shiny distraction, and the judge was duly distracted. He says women in
polygamous communities are at increased risk of harms including physical abuse,
depression, loss of autonomy and yes, the physical risks that come with choosing
to have more children.Aren't many women in monogamous
relationships subject to those same harms? The judge dismisses that question,
saying he was only asked to look at polygamy. "That harm may arise out of
other human relationships, that is, monogamous ones, seems beside the
point."The judge has allowed polyamory relationships without
fear of prosecution, as long as they do not invoke ceremonies into the
relationships. This would include polygamy as long as it isn't formalized.
Advocates of polyamory like advocates of overturned same-sex marriage will
continue to battle away at preconceived notions of bigotry. Your association of
harm in all polygamist relationships is a bigoted generalization. If harm in a
relationship is the standard you hold up, then all marriage should be outlawed
because of the harm that could exist in any marriage including same-sex.
"A law suite is to be filed in England demanding the Church of England
perform these marriages"Methinks you don't understand what
the Church of England actually is, and how it differs from the freedom of
religion and separation of Church and State we have here...
@UtahBlueDevil,You have misrepresented the Constitution. The duties
of the federal government are enumerated. That means that they are listed.
Anything NOT listed is left to the States or to the People. "Gay
Marriage" is not listed. It is something that the Federal Level of
Government has no authority to define or to defend. It is left to the States or
to the People. The State of California used it Constitutional Authority to
define what "Marriage" meant within the State of California. The PEOPLE
of California voted that "Marriage" was the union of ONE MAN and ONE
WOMAN. A gay federal judge decided that he didn't accept the will of the
people. He decided to interfer. That is a fact that anyone can check.You have twisted the 14th Amendment, which protected former slaves from
discrimination, to include those who think that they were born into the wrong
body, to demand that society should amend its rules to allow them to redefine
marriage. No such right is authorized by the Constitution. You know it and
everyone else knows it. Stop trying to twist the words of the Constitution to
suit the "gay activist agenda".
@jsf --"How does consensual polygamy cause harm? "Here's some excerpts from the court decision reaffirming Canada's
polygamy ban:-- "The prevention of [the] collective harms
associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an
objective that is pressing and substantial," -- "Women in
polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological
harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual
abuse" .-- "Children from those marriages, he said, were
more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school
and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."--
"Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great
many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious,
cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur
wherever polygamy exists."You said: "But you express bigotry
in your arguments."Nope. Polygamy conveys proven, concrete
harms. That's fact, not bigotry.You said: "A law suite is
to be filed in England demanding the Church of England perform these marriages.
"That's only because the Church of England is the *state*
church. Now aren't you glad we have separation of church and
@Mike.... the basic tenant of the constitution is that all people are endowed
with certain unalienable rights.... and that no person, state, enterprise, or
any other body has the right to deny anyone of these very basic rights. It is
fully the job of the Supreme Court of this country to ensure no body infringes
on these rights. To argue this is specifically not the providence of
the court to enshrine these rights, to protect these rights, shows a complete
misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court. Somehow I doubt you have
such gap in understanding. No state has the right to abridge anyones rights...
ever.So your statement makes no sense.... Agree or
disagree with the gay lifestyle, the supreme court has and will likely continue
to allow people to follow their own conscience - until the practice there of
impacts some others rights.
So Tekakaromatagi, you would be okay with a gay man and a lesbian woman marrying
each other and having children, so that they could have both a father and a
mother? You would be in favor of these two people teaching their children that
marriage is a sham.
Contrarius, How does consensual polygamy cause harm? You must have a bias on
this. I didn't include incest or pedophilia. You did, to taint the
argument. At one time anti same-sex laws were deemed good and valued laws to
prevent harm. But you express bigotry in your arguments. The case can be made
to override existing polygamy laws the same as the successful anti gay laws have
been overturned. In Russia they have anti gay laws, does that make it a valid
argument for outlawing gay relationships in the US. You even mention
"Lawrence vs. Texas". Because no one has yet brought a case, it can be
JoeCapitalist, you are comparing a group of people getting together to boycott a
movie with a group of people getting together to boycott a child's funeral?
These things are equivelant in your mind?
atl134I said they don't "Hate" the person. I didn't say
they won't have their own views, or be politically active, or protest.
But protesting for or against something doesn't mean you hate any
individual. And having your personal views on something doesn't mean
whatever they do represents the gospel or the church (or deny the fact that we
should view all people as the same, and all people as our brothers and
sisters).It's unfortunate that this ward member did something
that offended you, but that doesn't mean they "Hate" you (or
anybody). It just means they have political views and wanted to express, so
they held up a sign to express those views (but I would not assume their
personal views represent every Mormon's position).Bottom
line... we don't hate people because of sexual orientation. But that
doesn't mean we must support the GLBT agenda, or the new definition of
'marriage', or change the fundamental organization for human life (the
family).We don't "Hate" anybody.
Re: "So does that mean that homosexual couples don't have a right to
force someone to give them services?"Why would anybody not want
to provide homosexual couples with services?Because if he refuses,
that will show how righteous he is? "Be careful not to display your
righteousness merely to be seen by people."Because he
doesn't like to serve sinners? "Do not judge so that you will not be
judged....Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see
the beam of wood in your own?"Jesus said, "In everything,
treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and
the prophets."In everything.How do you want others
to treat you when you walk into a business? Do you want them to refuse to serve
you because they think you're a sinner, or because they don't like the
color of your hair or the shape of your nose?Do people have to
undergo moral judgement now every time they want to secure someone's
services?How do you want to be treated?
Your not our sorry
I think a majority of the nation view Card as being in the same position as the
bus company boycotted because Rosa Parks stood up against their unacceptable
positions on race, back in the 60s.Boycotters have every right to
attempt social change, it's a proud American tradition.
@ mikeSo then you would be fine with 97% of us that are not LDS
calling for a boycott against everything related to the 3% of you that are LDS
because we disagree with our religion? Luckily mike like the support for the gay
community their are many of us outside your religion that support your right to
be a religion and have the protections that go along with that.
@JoeCapitalist2"I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes
of atl134, truthseeker, Furry1993, KJB1, or others for these kinds of tactics,
only support."Boycotts are a matter of free speech. I'm not
a big fan of the tactic since half the time it backfires and makes things more
popular (see: Golden Compass... until people found the movie to be mediocre) but
if that's what they want to do... *shrugs*. "Judging by the
comments so far, I see that the "pro-gay" activists are well represented
here. They flood forums like this one with their message to give the impression
that their point of view is much more popular than it really is among the
population at large."Same-sex marriage has 50% support
nationally. Supporting gay rights is a pretty popular opinion.@2bits"I know for a fact that Mormons don't hate gay
people." Some do. When I was at Penn State one of the members of
my ward protested in favor of Rene Portland (women's bball coach) kicking
lesbians (or girls perceived to be lesbians) off the team because of sexuality.
He even had a homophobic sign.
re:JSF"How do you propose limiting a polygamist's rights, by
definition, legal code, discrimination against individuals?"Wow.
Yes, think about it. Why don't polygamists use the "freedom to
practice religion" argument being pursued by churches and religious groups?
Religious groups who don't have any problems with
contraceptives nonetheless signed a letter attesting religions should be able to
practice their beliefs as they see fit.
@Mike Richards --"When 3% of the people can call for a boycott
because they don't like the words spoken and written by an American against
their gay "rights" agenda, then 97% of the people can boycott everything
associated with gay "rights" activists."1. According to
multiple nationwide polls, more than 50% of the American public now supports gay
marriage. Not 3%.2. Gay people make up 3-5% of the population.
Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population. Do you really want to start
making arguments based on group size?3. NOM is currently sponsoring
TWO boycotts, against companies with pro-gay policies. If boycotts are
acceptable to NOM, why shouldn't they be acceptable for everyone else?"Of course gay activists only think of their side of things. They
don't allow anyone to dispute their propaganda."Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay-rights views do. @Copy Cat --"So does that mean that homosexual couples
don't have a right to force someone to give them services?"Businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the
lunch counter sit-ins. That is nothing new.
Continued 2...Sorry, my description of the LGBT documentary
regarding the LDS church was rejected as being to vulgar. I'll try again
and leave out any real description of the content (because it was vulgar).They interviewed a suposed BYU student with same sex attraction that
insisted he was bound and taken into the temple and showen gay pornography by
his church leaders and had several vulgar experaments done on him in the temple.
None of it even remotely possible (but reported as "Fact" in the
documentary).They showed footage of the LGBT protests at the LDS
temple in LA and SLC. Mentioned the vandalism of church buildings (and somehow
presented it as justified because the church supported Prop-8). Vandalism and
violence should NEVER be a valid response because someone supported the wrong
side of a proposition, or voted the wrong way (In your opinion). We NEVER
retaliate for people's votes in the United States. We are not ruled by
the Taliban (who threaten to come and make you sorry if they learn you voted the
wrong way or didn't support their point of view with your vote).It didn't stop there...
"And, you know what, I think we're smart enough to figure out how gays
can get married without letting people marry six wives or...." How so? The
constitution affords them the same rights as gays and straights. The concept of
limitation by one group against another, is the basis of why this argument is on
going. The attempt of Prop 8 was to figure out a way to limit state recognized
marriage to a man and a women. How do you propose limiting a polygamist's
rights, by definition, legal code, discrimination against individuals? See how
that works in America. Activists say they will not violate a
churches religious beliefs, forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, but,
that horse has left the barn. A law suite is to be filed in England demanding
the Church of England perform these marriages. Next will be the other christian
faiths in the country, and the U.S. law suites will follow.
@JoeCapitalist2 --"I haven't heard any condemnation from
the likes of .."And why should you?The National
Organization of Marriage currently has **two** official boycotts running,
against companies with pro-gay policies.Card has been a board member
of NOM for several years, until just this summer.If Card and NOM
think that boycotts are acceptable, why should you or we object to them?"give the impression that their point of view is much more popular
than it really is among the population at large."Sorry, Joe, but
multiple national polls show that more than 50% of the American public now
supports gay marriage.@Tekakaromatagi"For 20 years
they've pushed the idea of tolerance for diversity and then as soon as
people show up that disagree with them they try to bully them into
silence."Pro-gay-rights views don't kill people. Anti-gay
views do. BIG difference."Gays aren't being denied their
rights to marry. They can marry anyone of the opposite gender"Yet again -- this argument didn't work with interracial marriage, and it
doesn't work now."Promoting traditional marriage is a
powerful tool "Promote traditional marriage all you like. Gay
marriage does NOT threaten it.
A few people are going to be dissuaded from seeing a movie few will see anyway.
Card keeps his opinions. That's one edge of the sword. On the other side,
official discrimination that's gone on for decades continues. The other
edge. One seems sharper than the other. And, you know what, I think we're
smart enough to figure out how gays can get married without letting people marry
six wives or a major appliance.
@atl134,Prop 8 was a constitutional matter for the State of
California. It was not a federal matter. No federal court had jurisdiction;
but that didn't stop a federal judge from exercising unlawful
"authority". Then, the Supreme Court further violated the Supreme Law
of the Land by denying those in California who supported Prop 8 from testifying
before the court, telling them that they had no "standing". It was a
total travisty of justice by a federal judge and by the highest court in the
land.-----When 3% of the people can call for a boycott
because they don't like the words spoken and written by an American against
their gay "rights" agenda, then 97% of the people can boycott everything
associated with gay "rights" activists. Hollywood would cease to exist.
The entertainment industry would cease to exist. Much of the publishing
industry would cease to exist. Of course gay activists only think
of their side of things. They don't allow anyone to dispute their
@mike As you well know mike the majority of americians support gay
rights making your math my be at best wistfull.
Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional, and the USSC declined to hear an appeal
because those seeking the appeal lacked the proper legal status to do so.
That's not remotely the same thing as saying that the USSC tossed the issue
of same-sex marriage back to the states.I pay money all the time for
products and services that I know are provided by employees with whom I
disagree. The nature of the world is such that it's inevitable that we do
business with people who's beliefs we find objectionable.But if
the _owner_ of the brand makes it a point to work overtly to deny rights to a
minority, I reserve the right to decline an invitation to help enrich that
person. I'm not in any way trying to restrict Card's right to express
opinions with which I disagree, but I am refusing to let him do so with my
help.Consider: If a popular author took a leadership position in
organizations that sought to discriminate against Mormons, and one of that
author's books had just been made into a major Hollywood movie, what would
People have the right to boycott OSC for his views.Having said that
the hypocrisy of those who promote gay rights is apparent. For 20 years
they've pushed the idea of tolerance for diversity and then as soon as
people show up that disagree with them they try to bully them into silence.Same sex marriage is the new McCarthyism.Gays aren't
being denied their rights to marry. They can marry anyone of the opposite
gender just everyone else. No one would object if two bisexuals of the opposite
gender decided to marry or if a gay man and a lesbian woman wanted to marry for
whatever reason.Marriage is society's way to promote the idea
that children have the right to a father and a mother and that men should be
responsible for their reproductive actions. Promoting traditional marriage is a
powerful tool to fight poverty which is caused by out of wedlock births. That
the man and woman love each other is wonderful, but the point of marriage, at
the end of the day is less about validating romantic love and more about
promoting responsible procreation.
I know for a fact that Mormons don't hate gay people. I know lots of
Mormon families that have gay family members and we love them. Mormons just
don't approve of redefining "Marriage" or condone some behaviors
associated with same sex attraction.It's a basic tenant of the
gospel that every human spirit is litterally related to God (regardless of
beliefs, how they live, or sexual orientation). So it would make no sense to
hate someone because of their sexual orientation or any trait, they are still
litterally spirit children of the same father (and therefor the same family).But I can tell many LGBT leaders do "hate" Mormons.I
was surfing channels one Saturday and came accross a documentary on the LDS
church and decided to watch it to see what other people think of us. It was
INCREDIBLY hate-filled, and quickly became evident it was produced by the LGBT
community. It was so full of lies and negativity I eventually had to turn it
off. I checked to see what channel it was on, and noticed that it ran like
every 3 hours on that channel for days.'Continued...
"Card does not have a right to my money."So does that mean
that homosexual couples don't have a right to force someone to give them
services? (See 13th amendment, prohibiting slavery)
This letter deserves a better fisking than 200 words allows.The call
to boycott Ender's Game was not over Card's views in marriage; he has
a long and documented history of virulent anti-gay statements, including wanting
to make it illegal to be gay, and of using his money to support campaigns
against gay persons. Card wants to make it illegal to be gay and now he is
whining that gay people are not going to give him their money.The
letter misrepresents the Supreme Court decisions on both DOMA and Prop 8. Prop
8 was found unconstitutional by both lower courts that heard the case. The
Court decision essentially upheld that broader ruling. On DOMA, the court
struck down the federal ban on recognizing legally performed same sex
marriages.The call for a boycott hopes to raise awareness of
Card's activities and statements, to make people aware of his truly vicious
opinions. If you want an idea of the consequences of the actions he has
supported in the past, look at Russia today.
Midvaliean: "All gays didn't target OSC. But the extreme element did,
and those that are active in politics. They are and extreme element just as
Westboro is an extreme Christian element."And I suppose that the
gay community at large thinks that their opinions and tactics are as disgusting
as what the Christian community thinks of the Westboro Church's actions.
Right?I haven't heard any condemnation from the likes of
atl134, truthseeker, Furry1993, KJB1, or others for these kinds of tactics, only
support.Judging by the comments so far, I see that the
"pro-gay" activists are well represented here. They flood forums like
this one with their message to give the impression that their point of view is
much more popular than it really is among the population at large.
The system works, when the system is called "reciprocity". So if your
good to Mamma, she'll be good to you. Intention matter.
" upheld the right of the individual states to define marriage. The return
of the Propostion 8 case to the lower court further upheld this decision.
"Prop 8 was ruled to not have standing and so the lower FEDERAL
courts' verdict is the one that goes through. That's not leaving it to
The solution is simple. Boycott every business where people with whom you
disagree work. Tell those business owners that you will take your business
elsewhere.Orson Scott Card has the right to say anything that he
wants to say. Those who disagree with him have every right to boycott. But, it
is ludicrous to think that 3% of the population would not think of the damage to
themselves and to their cause when they make threats about an individual. Let's do the math. If 97% of the population boycotted every
business where people in that business held different viewpoints than their own,
who would cry "uncle" first? Orson Scott Card will not
suffer if every gay activist in America boycotts Ender's Game, but would
Hollywood survive if 97% of the population boycotted every film where a gay
activist or sympathiser produced, promotoed or starred in a movie?
It is kind of hard for the side that has the rights the other side wants to
claim they are the victims of bigotry.It's like a slave owner
telling his slaves they need to be respectful and tolerant of views that he
should be allowed to own other human beings.If you want to fight
against same-sex marriage, you are well within your right, but you have lost the
moral high ground to play the victim card.
So when conservatives speak their minds and try to live their beliefs,
they're brave patriots defending freedom. When liberals do the same,
they're a bunch of bigots who want to squash personal expression and are
anti-God to boot.Duly noted.
Card's personal views stopped being personal when he joined NOM's
board of directors. His views stopped being personal when he wrote articles,
spoke publicly, and contributed money to fight the legalization of gay marriage.
He chose to be public about his views, and the public has a right to choose
whether or not they attend a movie based on one of his novels.
Card does not have a right to my money. I have the right to spend that money how
I see fit and using any criteria that I choose. If I choose to "punish
him" economically and financially for his bigoted views, that is my right to
not spend money on his product. That is the free market that you conservative
folks are always blathering about.
"Card writing in 1990, “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain
on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to
be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message
that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior
cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that
society.”"In the Mormon Times in 2009, he wrote,
“Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in
turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the
normalization of homosexual unions.”How is Card "hurt"
personally and individually by same-sex marriage? Card has had a
public platform to express his views to deny basic rights as defined in the
Supreme Court's decision in Loving v.Virginia stating that to deny the
"fundamental freedom" of marriage "on so unsupportable a basis"
as race "is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
without due process of law."Therefore, others may use a public
platform in an attempt to deny Card financial benefits.
Homosexual,Homophobe.Yes, I guess you could call it a sort of
Two-way bigotry.BTW - I'm curious.Orson Scott
Card is Social-Economic Liberal, and has been pasted many a time here in the
Deseret News over the years for his opinions..How is it
conservatives rally behind him on this issue, yet beat him to a pulp on
all the others?
I don't see it as two way bigotry so much as reaping what you sow. All
gays don't hate Orson Scott Card. But if you politicize your views
publicly then there are consequences to your "free speech," something we
all know. All gays didn't target OSC. But the extreme element did,
and those that are active in politics. They are and extreme element just as
Westboro is an extreme Christian element. Lets classify people how
they really are, and not just lay out blanket statements, Gays did this, or
Mormons did that. All Mormons are not the same. All Gays are not the same.
Lets stop acting like they are.
This whole thing just makes me want to go "huh". Government did not
invent, not create the institution of marriage. In fact, even in the most
lawless parts of the world, marriage is still an institution that permeates
diverse societies and cultures world wide. A governments "right" to
determine who marries who is tenuous at best... since the act of falling in
love, and living with a "partner" hardly requires permission from any
government. The notion that a government has the right to determine issues of
the heart are frightening at best.People "connecting" today,
to create informal "families" unfortunately has become a norm, where
living together is an accepted alternative to marriage is a much larger threat
to the family. If you want to get up in arms about an issue... it is shaking
up... not gays as the biggest issue. What gays do or don't do
has far less to do with the fall of the family then what straight people do
outside the bounds of marriage. Lets focus more on really reinforcing
families, then chasing rainbows.
Card has every right to hold and express his opinion. He does NOT have the
right to escape the consequences of holding and expressing his opinion. He is
reaping the consequences of his actions.
Clearly, two-way bigotry. One side utilizes the machinations of
government to deny people the constitutionally-protected fundamental right to
marry the person they love.The other side "punishes this
individual" by electing not to spend ten bucks on a movie. Yeah, these two forms of "bigotry" are 100% in the same ballpark;
Be assured, it most certainly does run both ways. Some can't see this
though because of their own strong bias (bigotry). Some of the most hateful
comments I read in the media on this whole issue come from those promoting
"gay rights", whatever those really are. What's good for the goose
is good for the gander.