@Ranchhand"Can I please, please, please get a copy of the "gay
agenda""I think it was displayed on a protest sign a woman
was carrying at one of the rallies.6am: Wake up.6:30: Walk dog.7:00: Breakfast with family.7:45: Go to work. 4:30: Help kids with
homework.5:00: Cook family dinner.6:00: Kids sports. 7:45:
Break up a heterosexual man-woman marriage.8:00: Relax with family.8:45: Tuck kids in bed.9:00: Watch Rachel Maddow.10:00: Go to bed
antodav says:"The plain historical facts show that marriage has
always been an inter-gender proposition."---Sorry,
but you are incorrect. Same-gender marriages have been accepted in many ancient
cultures right along with opposite-gender marriages. You could easily do a
google search to find information about this. My guess is that you're not
willing to make the effort though because it'll pop your self-induced
bubble.@scootd28*;Nobody is "ridiculing" your
support of man-woman family styles, you're being criticized for your
obstinate opposition to family styles that differ from yours.@onceuponatime;Another simple google search will find the
requisite boycotts you're interested in.@small town granny;Do you want me to marry your granddaughter, and do you NOT want
great-grandchildren?@DRay;Can I please, please, please
get a copy of the "gay agenda", I was never issued one and am sorely in
need of it.
Many who post here are not aware of Card's exact, stated words. They
include:"The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that
homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost
laughably irrelevant.""This applies also to the polity, the
citizens at large. 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."I don't really need to add anything to this. Beauty (or lack
thereof) is in the eye of the beholder.
I have found LGBT to be far less interested in human rights than they are in
their agenda; a strong faction of it is vulgar, tries to bully and coerce; it
is a bad influence they peddle, a self defeating philosophy that is neither
noble nor good.
Too bad Card is not capable of practicing the tolerance he does such a good job
preaching in his books.
Re: "We do not try to tell anyone how to live their lives, but we should
have the right to voice our concerns ..."Of course you have that
right, but are you aware that when you voice those concerns others will still
hear disapproval in your voice and sense that you are telling them, even if
indirectly? And when you start passing laws, then you are in fact telling them
how to live their lives.You may feel that certain relationships
undermine society, but that doesn't mean that they do. Feeling, even strong
feeling, isn't knowing. Others may feel just as strongly that those same
relationships strengthen society, and their feelings are as valid as yours.Nobody likes to be told, even indirectly, "Do as I say, because I
know what's best for everybody." Such imperatives almost guarantee that
people will not do as you say. If you have the need to teach, teach by example.
You will influence more people that way than with a hundred lectures. Live your
own life as you feel life should be lived, and - even if you disapprove - let
others live their lives as they feel life should be lived.
@scootd28"We do not try to tell anyone how to live their
lives,"I sense a "but" coming..."
but"there it is. " we should have the right to
voice our concerns over the long-term social impact of promoting formal family
relationships that we feel undermine the family and therefore undermine
society.""So you don't try to tell people how to live
their lives... you just express disapproval with how some people choose to live
How come none of you anti-LBGT people/traditional marriage people accept shows
like Bachelor and Bachelorette that makes a complete mockery of the sanctity of
marriage by making it a game show? If heterosexuals are going to mock marriage
like that, I have no problem with two committed same sex people having civil
Right on, RBB. I agree. Deseret news writers are too hung up on this issue. Move
Gays have the same rights as all of us. If a man and a woman want to marry,
they can. They want "special" rights and special treatment. Maybe I
would like some special treatment because my husband is a man, and I am a woman!
How do I demand some special treatment? Where shoud I go, what should I do??
@Henry Drummond --"...statement made by Orson Scott Card almost
a quarter of a century ago."Card advocated insurrection against
the Federal government in 2008 -- and he's made many other recent
statements as well. @onceuponatime --"Why don't
those who are for traditional marriage boycott anyone who has spoken in favor of
gay marriage..."NOM currently has two boycotts -- one against
General Mills, and the other against Starbucks.Card has been a board
member of NOM for years. If he thinks boycotts are acceptable, why should they
bother you?@scootd28* --"Sex should be
private"Tell that to all the companies that advertise worldwide
using nearly naked women to sell their products. Victoria's Secret,
anyone?"Yet, those of us who speak out for building it up and
supporting the man-woman-child family structure are ridiculed as bigots"Here's the thing: building up heterosexual families DOES NOT
REQUIRE tearing down homosexual families.I'm all for straight
marriages. Most people are, gay or straight. Supporting gay marriage DOES NOT
MEAN objecting to straight marriages.You only get called a bigot
because you think that your marriage requires denying somebody else the rights
to have THEIR marriage. It doesn't.
Those of you who called for a boycott of that musical "Book of Mormon"
by the South Park creators probably shouldn't be casting stones at the
people supporting this boycott.
ok....i say lets enjoy a good movie. personally i do not support movies with
zombies, sex, vulgar language, violence, homosexual subjects, blood-guts-gore,
unkind acts towards an animal. i try to support movies with good subjects, funny
without language, family friendly. yes that cuts out most of the movies so i
save money ! enders game was an interesting book. i also enjoyed the hunger
games series. sadly many follow the footsteps of popularity in movies and music.
as for me and my hubby and hopefully my adult children will only support family
The group is reacting to the following statement made by Orson Scott Card almost
a quarter of a century ago.“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.” - “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality,”
Sunstone Magazine, Feb 1990.While I disagree strongly with the above
statement I don't think you fight intolerance with more intolerance. I
think the place to challenge Orson Scott Card's repugnant statement is in
the political arena - not the movie theater.
Why don't those who are for traditional marriage boycott anyone who has
spoken in favor of gay marriage as they LGBT's do with those who
don't have the same views that they do. Let's play their game. I am
tired of their economic blackmail. If you don't do what we say we will ruin
your career. Let's fight back with our wallets. Members from the LGBT
community aren't the only people who buy products and services.
Another thing Monsieur le Prof referred to - the offensive and often (very
often) vulgar parades. They ARE offensive and vulgar. I lived for 18 months in
Paris, and worked every day very near the Marais district of the city, which is
commonly known as the "gay" district. We frequently had posters and
flyers left in the windows of our office, and they were ALWAYS sexual. I
don't care if it is heterosexual or bi-sexual or homosexual, such displays
are offensive to me. Sex should be private, and from what I've seen of the
"gay community", sex is patently not private. That is what I believe,
that is what my morals are based on, that is how I was raised. Not to hate
ANYONE, (I truly do not hate) but to keep my sexual relationship sacred and
intimate between my wife and me. As a result, I find such public displays of
sexuality offensive - again, whether it be hetero or homosexual I
don't expect anyone to agree or sympathize. I fully expect significant
backlash. Again - why? Why can I not speak without ridicule?
To all who jumped on Monsieur le Prof's comment...There is little in life
or in society that is more essential, more basic, more private, more intimate
than the relationship between a man and a woman. In the interest of the
survival of society, a man-woman-child family is indispensable - obviously,
without it, society would die out. Yet, those of us who speak out for building
it up and supporting the man-woman-child family structure are ridiculed as
bigots (and yet - being called a bigot still means something to us). We do not
try to tell anyone how to live their lives, but we should have the right to
voice our concerns over the long-term social impact of promoting formal family
relationships that we feel undermine the family and therefore undermine society.
Yet, we don't seem to have that right. Why not? Why must we constantly
grant the right of others to express their opinion and concerns, but we are not
able to? Why?? Why?? Why??
@antodav --"marriage is not a right"I believe
that the Supreme Court knows more about US laws and the Constitution than you
do. ;-)"what the Supreme Court says changes drastically over
time"The court cases cited in that court statement were from
1967, 1942, and 1888. I'm pretty sure there were different justices and
different presidents on each of those dates. ;-)"The essential
nature of marriage at that time to our survival was obviously tied to its role
in procreation. "Marriage is also essential in creating stable
relationships, which are essential to a stable civilization."The
plain historical facts show that marriage has always been an inter-gender
proposition."Actually, the "plain historical facts" show
that you are 100% wrong here.In fact, we know from written legal
codes that gay unions have been recognized as far back as the Mesopotamians and
Assyrians, if not earlier. They were also recognized as early as 600 BC in the
Roman Empire (and please note that, despite frequent claims to the contrary,
Rome didn't fall for roughly 1000 years AFTER this point). In
fact, same-sex marriages have been recognized at points throughout human
history. And that's the "plain historical facts".
And in response to a couple of other comments, no, marriage is not a right, and
what the Supreme Court says changes drastically over time depending on who is
running. Not that the Supreme Court case cited there is dated from 1967. Pretty
sure the court didn't have gay marriage in mind when they made that
statement. The essential nature of marriage at that time to our survival was
obviously tied to its role in procreation. Clearly that has nothing to do with
gay marriage, which is incapable of naturally producing children. The plain historical facts show that marriage has always been an inter-gender
proposition. The number of people involved in marriage has fluctuated depending
on the time and the culture, but it has always been between men and women, not
between men and men, or women and women. To argue that it can be such is to
ignore the very purposes for which marriage came into existence, as well as the
basic laws of nature. But who cares about any of that anymore. "If it feels
good, do it" has been the rule now for 40 years. This is the result.
This makes me not want to see it more than what Orson Scott Card said.
I would like to know how many of my fellow LDS would react if Orson Scott Card
was a raging Anti-Mormon/Mormons are devil worshipper/Sinners/not Christian/cult
school of thinking.
@Pops --"Marriage is not a right"The Supreme
Court disagrees with you.From the US Supreme Court case 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). "As for the movie --IMHO Lionsgate brings up
a very good point. They obviously HAVE supported gay rights issues in both their
employment practices and their movies -- and paying for a ticket will help to
support that company, its policies, and all its employees (who owe a special
thanks to all the anti-gay-rights people who go to the movie just to spite them
evil ol' gays).OTOH, I believe that publicizing the boycott was
a good thing. It promotes more awareness and discussion, whether or not it
affects the movie financially -- and hey -- now Lionsgate is going to do a
pro-gay benefit, which they probably wouldn't have done without the
controversy. That's all to the good.And now I'll probably
go see the movie. I'll tell myself I'm supporting Lionsgate, not Card.
I will boycott because i thought the book was awful and usually the movie
versions are worse.
I suspect we've got the next 'battlefield earth' here.
Thank you BYR for your comment about separating the art from the artist. I have
never judged anything by who wrote or sculpted or painted or created it. I have
refrained from seeing some movies because they were vulgar, profane, or
uninteresting to me, but not because of who produced it.And thank
you, too, Jim for your simple, yet profound insight into what makes this nation
@Emjay: What is amazing to me, is that there are so many people who make
statements about what is/was the accepted norm and that with just a little bit
of effort these people could find the actual documented facts. It seems to me to
be less of wanting to know the truth and more about revising history to fits
ones religious beliefs.
@Jim: You comment is incorrect. Card has the 1st ammendment right to freedom of
speech as does everyone living in the U.S.A. Nobody has the right to expect no
repercussions (retribution in your words)from exercising that right.
In my opinion Lionsgate is in it for the money only and anyone can see
that.Don't do anything to drive away the almighty buck. I don't know
what Card said and don't care. He is entitled to his own opinion and to
state it. I believe in freedom of speech. However, I do not believe that anyone
should pander to any group simply to make money.We are all people and should be
treated with respect but not catered to because we believe differently,
regardless of that belief system. If you want to boycott anything that is your
right. Has anyone heard of just ignoring? Why must everyone state their opinion
all the time and make an issue of everything from soup to nuts. Do you know that
most of us simply don't care what you think????
Gently, kindly, who cares. I wish the DesNews would stop running stories like
this. Everytime someone expresses an opinion there is talk about someone
boycotting. If the GLBT community does not to see a movie because they do not
believe that Mr. Card has the right to his opinion, then don't go. I do
not get why the DesNews has to waste time it. All it does is encourage the
bullies and intimidate people from sharing their points of view. There are to
many on both sides who believe in free speech as long as the speaker is agreeing
with them. I hope the DesNews will stop supporting bullying by not giving the
bullies their 15 minites of fame.
I'm with you Ltrain, but first a nice chicken sandwich.
It's unfortunate so many are unable to distinguish between "same
rights" and "similar opportunity", for it is the latter they seek
(on the subject of gay "marriage") and not the former. Marriage is not a
right, but an opportunity afforded by the state to those who meet certain
initial requirements. It offers benefits to couples who are willing to abide by
continuing requirements that are designed to protect children. Neither the
initial nor the continuing requirements stipulate anything about sexual
attraction or love.I appreciate the difficult challenges faced by
those burdened with same sex attraction, and, speaking of actual rights, desire
that they have the same rights as anyone else. I would be willing to support
some mechanism by which gay couples would be afforded certain legal benefits
when entering into a formal contractual relationship. But I do not support
including children in the mix because I believe each child has a right to be
raised by both of its biological parents; putting children into the mix would
constitute legal imprimatur to the denial of that right. (If anything, we ought
to strengthen marriage laws to better protect children.)
@monsieur le prof"It's hard not to offend them."Ah, yes... that elusive "them" again. It's different, though,
when "them" includes a relative or a friend and you discover that
"they" are human beings very much like the rest of us with the same
hopes and dreams, the same desires for a happy life, the same hobbies and
interests, and that "they" aren't drooling monsters wanting to
destroy your lifestyle. While I've been a fan of Card's
writing for years and enjoyed Ender's Game when it was first published,
that doesn't mean I have to buy into his personal beliefs any more than
those who've read my novels will always agree with my beliefs or that my
publisher will agree with them. I'm sure that Card was aware that Lionsgate
didn't agree with his beliefs when he signed the contract with them, so I
don't see any issue here, although he probably would have found it
difficult to locate a homophobic film studio to produce the movie.
Isn't it amazing that supporting something that has been the norm for
thousands of years is controversial. Isn't it amazing that truth telling
is now controversial.
(How can I say this without offending someone....hmmm) If I did not separate the
art from the artist, I would never enjoy the many wonderful things created by
those in the LGBT community. Tolerance must be from both sides.
Surely Card is entitled to his 1st amendment right without fear of retribution,
the same way anyone else might be. You don't have to agree with the way
that someones expresses their 1st amendment right, but you have to respect their
right to say it. That is what makes this country so great. The freedom to
express yourself without fear of retribution.
Typical reaction by heterophobes.
@monsieur le prof"It's hard not to offend them."I
would like to add that wanting to deny them the same rights that others enjoy
will probably tick 'em off too.
There are hundreds of people responsible for any movie. If one of them does
something you don't like you boycott the movie?
Now, I'm going to boycott Lionsgate!!
It's not a scandal or a controversy. It is a personal and deeply held
belief. If you don't agree with it, then don't see the movie.
I missed the boycott news and when I saw this headline I figured it was over
spoiling the reveal in the trailer.
@monsieur le prof"It's hard not to offend them."Actually I find it easy, then again I don't call them sinners, brand them
as unfit parents, or try and impose my religious beliefs on them.
Yes, you certainly do not what to get on the bad side of the LGBT group. They
are super sensitive and very intolerant of other people's beliefs and
standards. It's hard not to offend them. I just wish businesses would stay
neutral and not feel like they have to support their often offensive and vulgar
Pride Days and parades.
To paraphrase from a song out the Musical South Pacific, "You've got to be carefully taught" You've got
to be taught to hate and fear,You've got to be taught from year
to year,It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,You've got to be carefully taught.You've got to be
taught to be afraidOf people who love is oddly made,And
people whose love is a diff'rent shade,You've got to be
carefully taught.You've got to be taught before it's too
late,Before you are six or seven or eight,To hate all
the people your relatives hate,You've got to be carefully
Tolerance to all who believe like they doGreat job card!I believe like you do!Your comments were right then. And now.