Those who have read some of Card's works will understand his genius. In my
opinion, Card has been turned into a target, one who's "evil
intents" have been overplayed to make him look like a heartless monster. The
drama, the beautiful sense of rebellion that comes from a movement adds fuel to
the fire. The idea of a boycott is tempting and lustrous, but this is the
ignorance among those that wish to be apart of something bigger and better than
just them. Truly, Card's opinions are blown out of proportion by those who
wish to start trouble. His books should be praised as they are amazing, and the
movie should not be persecuted because of their writer's beliefs.
Regardless of your worldview, Card's right on this. Personal attacks, of
the kind we are witnessing, are simply fallacious, visceral reactions, not true
discourse based on reason. Labeling someone as homophobic, Christophobic,
Islamophobic, racist, a bigot, hateful or intolerant and leaving it at that
requires no effort and is little more than a therapeutic and fallacious
self-justification of an ill- or un-defined felt moral system. Any one can do
it, regardless of who they are or what they believe. I haven't personally
read all of Card's writing on this topic, but if a person or group of
people disagrees with Card, and additionally wishes to be taken seriously--i.e.
to be truly persuasive rather than coercive--by a mind like Card's on the
issue of same-sex marriage then they will need to take up his challenge and
provide a convincing, coherent argument that at least covers:1
Mormonism and/or Christianity are most reasonably false (or justify same-sex
marriage as morally good). 2 And instead there is good reason to believe
same-sex marriage is objectively morally praiseworthy, reasonable and honorable
by means of a new, clearly defined, intrinsically coherent, moral system.
He's outspoken about his opinions but that's his right. And it's
the right of anyone to boycott the movie. God bless America.
Mukkake - I think you meant to say "I'll just steal the movie buy
downloading it illegally online."
@One Angry Salebarn Worker --"Not normally my viewing fare, but
I will see Enders Game because of type of people who oppose it--and encourage
others to do the same."Great. Support gay rights, and recruit
others to do the same. It's great to hear that you'll be with us on
Bigotry and discrimination have no place in our society. Those who practice it
should be criticized for it; including Scott Card.
Poor Scotty. It isn't "lying, deceptive, personal attacks" to
criticize you for your own words.
I am totally in favor of boycotts. I boycott R-rated films, and I frequently
boycott films that are made by people whose political views I oppose. I have no
problem whatsoever with anyone declaring a boycott of Orson Scott Card, Utah,
Temple Square, or even me. I will not join the boycott of
"Ender's Game." I would have privately boycotted the film if it
had been rated R, and it isn't. Further, I love the book. I consider it
one of the best science fiction books of the 20th Century. It is a profound
book and deeply moving. I hope the film does it justice.Besides, in
Card's case, I find that I agree with his politics anyway, so I'm
inclined to support him for political reasons. I don't want that to color
my appraisal of the film, but I can't escape the fact that it might. Artistically, I hope the film is successful. Politically, I really hope
the film is successful. But if a boycott is successful (which I doubt), or if
the film is no good (which I hope not), then I still have that wonderful book.
Not normally my viewing fare, but I will see Enders Game because of type of
people who oppose it--and encourage others to do the same.
"Whenever the left chooses to boycott something (such as Chick-Fil-A or
Hobby Lobby), the right complains that their freedom of speech is being
violated."No not really - We just end up shopping there. By the
way thanks for the information on Hobby Lobby. Looks like I am going to be
eating more chicken and now buying some "hobby" stuff.
@Duckhunter --"He said "sexual behavior" you added the
"gay" part."No, I didn't. He wasn't talking
about rape or incest -- he was talking about gay people. It was an article about
the Lawrence SCOTUS case. He thought that sodomy laws should have remained on
the books. He specifically said: " Laws against homosexual behavior should
remain on the books" -- and yes, that's a direct quote. Again, he wants
gays to be treated as second-class citizens.Nice try at obfuscation,
though. ;-)I'l repeat: Card has advocated insurrection because
of gay marriage. He has accused gays of stealing from him. He has accused gays
of wanting to devour the Church flock. He has specifically declared that gays
should be treated as second-class citizens.How is any of that NOT
@contrariusierMost of those you took completely out of context and
ommitted key parts of them. Let's take #4"those
who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."He said "sexual behavior" you added the "gay" part.
Certainly gay acts can be included in any explanantion of "sexual
behavior" but what about rape? What about incest? What about beastiality?
What about pedophilia? All of those are also "sexual
behavior" and I'm just wondering if practitioners of those things
should be "permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that
society." or if Mr. Card is correct in saying that "those who flagrantly
violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to
remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."Yes i
know you are going to exempt homosexual behavior from the others, that is the
gay narrative afterall, but Mr. card is correct when he references
"society's regulation". Obviously society should regulate sexual
behavior shouldn't it? Or are you suggessting that all of those other forms
be allowed as well?
What a minute now, Orson Scott Card is decrying "personal attacks"
against him? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He's been
launching personal attacks against the President and any and all people who do
not share his extreme political views on his blog (The Ornery American) and the
Rhino Times for many years. “I’ve had no criticism.
I’ve had savage, lying, deceptive personal attacks, but no actual
criticism because they’ve never addressed any of my actual
ideas....Character assassination seems to be the only political method that is
in use today, and I don’t play that game..." Excuse me
OSC, but you are a master at that game and have been for years. So many of your
posts are just that, character assassinations devoid of cogent thought or valid
criticism. Wow, talk about hypocritical. If you are going to dish out the hate
it seems reasonable to expect you are going to get some of it back.
@Duckhunter --"Once again the Dnews is very inconsistent"I agree with you there, at least.Trying again --
1. "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..."-- He didn't say "vote the
bums out of office" or "we'll get em at the next election" --
He said "destroy" that government "and bring it down" -- and
earlier in that passage he also said "by whatever means".--
That's insurrection. Card is actually willing to incite the destruction of
the Federal government.2. Married gays: "They steal from me what
I treasure most".-- Are married gay people somehow forcing him to get
divorced?? How do gay people "steal" anything??3. Gays in
church: "They are wolves in sheep's clothing, preaching meekness while
attempting to devour the flock."-- Gay people want to "devour"
Christians??4. Gays in general: "those who flagrantly violate
society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
acceptable, equal citizens within that society."-- Yup, he
specifically wants second class citizenship for gays.How are these
statements NOT hateful?
Jim says "So much for First amendment rights."You clearly do
not understand the concept of "freedom of speech." If the government
were attempting to suppress Mr. Card or passing laws saying citizent
couldn't speak or write in opposition of gay marriage, then you would have
a point. That's not happening, all theoretical hysterical, hand-wringing
predictions about the future of the US aside.Are you suggesting that
private citizens should not be allowed to organize a boycott of a movie or say
they think Mr. Card and his agenda are wrong and harmful? Essentially, a
gay-rights opponent can cloak themselves in the First Amendment, but proponents
can't, is that it?I cringed when I read Card's views, but
I think a boycott is ineffectual at best, counterproductive at worst. If
there's anything I'm sure about, it's that this has nothing to do
with the First Amendment.
@duckhiunterthree times I have tried to post his quotes and been
denied. You re right some of his quotes have been published but the most hateful
have not appeared in this paper, the question is why does the DN want to keep it
secret if its not hateful?
@contrariuserNo they are not denying your post because it quotes
Card, his comments have been printed in this very paper. They obviously think
the manner you are trying to post them, your spin on them, is either faulty or
else argumentative.Once again the Dnews is very inconsistent with
how they moderate things around here but it is what it is, they own the site.That said I do not agree with your spin on Card's comments in the
slightest, I have read them and he is reasonable and persuasive as well as being
forthright. You just don't like them so you want to paint them as bigoted.
Any comment opposing gay marriage is going to be spun as
"hateful" or bigoted by people such as yourself that support gay
marriage. That is your agenda, that is how you want to debate this subject,
those are your talking points. No one can oppose it without being painted as a
bigot because that is your narrative. Opposition to gay marriage is bigotry,
hate, and oppression, is that not what the gay marriage supporters claim?All opposition is bigotry, we get it.
@Duckhunter --"I doubt your comment was denied because it quoted
Card"Actually, Spring Street is correct. I have also tried,
twice, to post quotes from Card to this thread. Evidently the DN moderators
really do think that Card's comments are too hateful to be suitable for
posting."Certainly he differs on the subject than you do but
that doesn't mean he is filled with hate."Card has
specifically advocated insurrection against the Federal government (he did that
right here in the Deseret News) over the issue of gay marriage, and he has
specifically stated that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens.
What is not hateful about such statements?
kiddsport:[That's called pirating and is punishable by significant
fines and imprisonment.]I've been doing it for 15 years and
have yet to see either.[Another word for it is theft.]Only because corporations convinced the government to call it that.
Those who claim that Mr. Card's first amendment rights are being violated
have a poor understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment proclaims
that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
The government has done absolutely nothing to limit Mr. Card's freedom of
speech, so there has been no violation of his freedom of speech. If individuals
choose not to listen to him, that is certainly their right. Likewise, it is
their right not to attend a movie based on his book.Whenever the
left chooses to boycott something (such as Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby), the
right complains that their freedom of speech is being violated. Nonsense!
Likewise, if the right chooses to boycott J.C.Penney's for its support of
same-sex marriage, that is no violation of the free speech rights of
J.C.Penney's executives either.
@spring streetI doubt your comment was denied because it quoted
Card, the dnews has a very inconsistent manner of moderating the site,
they've denied comments of mine that weren't argumentative or
offensive in the least. If you look above you'll see they've now gone
back and erased the post with the question I aked you were trying to reply to,
such is their inconsistency.That said I have read Card's
comments and they are not in the least bit hate filled. Certainly he differs on
the subject than you do but that doesn't mean he is filled with hate. I
also oppose gay marriage but I certainly don't hate gays and I won't
be intimidated into shutting up my opinions on the matter. I
understand that the pro gay agenda's method is to marginalize and
intimidate those that oppose their agenda, paint them as bigots and homophobes,
by doing that they think it will shut them up. Sadly they have had some success
doing it, but some of us won't shut up, some of us won't be
intimidated, Scott card is one of those people. Good for him.
@Jim --"So much for First amendment rights."NOM
is currently running TWO boycotts, against companies with pro-gay policies. Why
is it okay for them to boycott, but not for anyone else?As for me, I
encourage everyone to go see "Ender's Game".EVERYONE
who supports gay rights should go to see this movie.The production
company in charge of the movie, Lionsgate Films, is being honored by the Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight Education Network for its extensive pro-gay policies. The studio is an industry leader in ensuring workplace protections and
benefits for LGBT people, including benefits for same-sex couples. It has also
previously produced excellent gay-inclusive movies like "Gods and
Monsters" and "The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Additionally, Lionsgate
plans to host an LGBT-oriented fundraiser in association with the opening of the
film.So we can choose to boycott one guy who made anti-gay remarks,
or we can support a pro-gay company that employs hundreds.Support
gay rights! Go see "Ender's Game"!
@duckhunterSo I tried last night to post a response to you. I quoted
from Mr. Card but the DN found them to offensive to post, which pretty much
proves the point. When someone buts that kind of hatred out into the world they
are likely to receive hatred back.
Mukkake:That's called pirating and is punishable by significant fines
and imprisonment. Another word for it is theft. Are we still allowed to use
those terms? Do we still understand their moral significance? To LGBTs:Perhaps OSCs remarks were driven by the counsel, "it becometh every man
who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." Not out of hate but of love and
concern, "in mildness and in meekness." I didn't see OSCs comments
but I would hope they were characterized as such.We can treat others who
are different with all respect due while holding true to our own moral dictates.
I'll just download the movie online. That way I can watch it, but not add
to any of the revenue. I'll also make sure to share, share, share, so
others can do the same.
Time for the perpetually offended to rear their ugly heads again I guess.
Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Anyway, don't know much about
Mr. Card or his books other than a couple of my kids like his stuff. I think
I'll go see Ender's Game even though I have no idea what it's
about. That's about the best way I can think of to support Mr. Card and
let those whiny babies know I don't like what they're attempting.
Ender's Game is a story that wrestles with how to treat others who are
different. As such, it is highly ironic that Mr. Card should express such
insights in his fiction novels (and film), but so completely fail to learn the
same lessons in his personal expressions of belief. And it is disingenuous of
him to declare that his ideas have not been countered, but only his character
has been attacked. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There was a time when boycotts had a true affect in changing laws and practices.
But over the last decade or two, it appears to me the term "boycott" has
been thrown around so much it has truly lost its effectiveness.I
remember awhile back when a number of conservative churches and organizations
announced they were boycotting Disney because of their so-called "pro
gay" agenda. Did it work? Did the boycott have the desired effect?Then there was the NRA's list of celebrities, activists, newspapers and
businesses they felt were "anti-second amendment" which they wanted
their members to boycott. How did that turn out?Of course this is
not exclusive to the right. After Prop 8 passed in California, some in the LGBT
community called for a boycott of all things Utah and all things LDS. As someone who works closely in the hotel business in Salt Lake, from my point
of view if there's been a downturn in tourism in Utah, it has been tied
much more to the recession than to anything having to do with Prop 8.
@duckhuinter When you make comments such as "sodomy laws should
have been left in place to punish unruly gays," "homosexuals are self
loathing victims of child abuse," and "homosexuality is a tragic genetic
mix up," you may just find that people get really offended and personally
attacked by you, so no Mr Card is not an innocent victim and yes he reaps what
The boycott is silly, but if that's what people want to do, fine. Mr. Card
is an excellent author. As Jim said, first amendment rights are often not
respected by the left. It's not okay to have an opinion different from
theirs. It extends from being politically correct which is a tremendous cancer
in our society that stifles free speech along with open, candid, respectful
discourse and debate.
Christianity is 2,000 years old and getting stronger thanks to art and morality
and new scripture. Hollywood is dying and dull, no new ideas.
Did Chris B and Duckhunter really agree with each other?
So much for First amendment rights. Mr Card expressed an opinion, his own
opinion. And people want to punish all. It appears that one group want to
force the majority to think the same way as they do. They movie is just a movie
and doesn't promote hate mongering, unlike those who want to boycott it,
He's being disingenuous. I've seen a lot of the criticisms of Card
online and I haven't seen anyone attacking him personally, only attacking
his racism and homophobia. I think he made that up to try and discredit those
who are opposed to him.
I visited the Skip Ender's Game site to see what he might have said that
was out of line. According to that site, he said: “So if [they] insist on
calling what they do 'marriage,' they are not turning their
relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the
power to change what their relationship actually is."Instead
they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected
status of our, and every other, real marriage."They steal from
me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't
be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents'
clothes.”Sounds correct to me. How is the union of two
homosexual individuals the equivalent of marriage? The latter is the joining of
the complementary in a synergistic relationship, while the former is the
non-synergistic joining of the similar. Someone ought to address that and
Scott's other ideas instead of resorting to personal attacks.
First of all I think the boycott is out of line. If this newspaper called for a
boycott of Amazon.com or some other organization because they support Gay
Marriage, I think these boards would light up with criticism of the move. I would suggest however, that Orson Scott Card's speech has been
out of line as well. Those who want to find out what he said can visit the Skip
Ender's Game site and find out. I have not seen KSL's actual
interview, but I would hope they called on him to be accountable for his harsh
Boycotts need to be carefully targeted to be effective. In this case,
Card's involvement in the film is dilute enough that a) a decrease in box
office receipts won't affect his residuals very much and b) a lot of
LGBT-supportive people involved in the film's production WILL be adversely
affected. A boycott of his book would be a better strategy, but even then it
would only make much of a dent in sales if timed to the original release.Card, quoted in article: "I've had no criticism. I've had
savage, lying, deceptive personal attacks, but no actual criticism because
they've never addressed any of my actual ideas."Card has
apparently not read the online comments to his former DesNews columns. As I
recall, there were many cogent critiques and rebuttals of his opinions on SSM
and few personal attacks. I was disappointed that he never followed through
with a promised multi-part series of columns on SSM. The one column he wrote
rehashed the usual tepid arguments and presented nothing original or persuasive.
The online commentary easily refuted them. Perhaps he could revisit the topic
in these pages.
Homosexuality has been declared by the prophets, both ancient and modern, to be
a sin of enormous moral magnitude. It is a sad day when a popular artist is
targeted for religious beliefs which align with the scriptures. Even worse,
some of those doing the targeting call themselves LDS.Kudos to Scott
for standing on a firm foundation.
I'm looking forward to seeing Ender's Game. I'm intrigued by the
story line. The actors involved are top notch. As far as I know, this is still
America and people have the right to express their opinion as they choose. If
you don't agree, then you don't. Good on you.
Personal attacks? "That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups
does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and
females." Orson Scott Card, Deseret News, July 24, 2008."Many people have homosexual experiences or desires and fantasies in
adolescence, yet grow up to be fully functional, at least for a time..."
Orson Scott Card, Deseret News, August 8, 2008. When I'm called
a dysfunctional tragic genetic mixup, that's supposedly a criticism based
on ideas? But when I discourage people from lining the pockets of the man who
calls me this, I'm engaged in a personal attack? Talk about calling evil
good and good evil.
Obviously it would be sad if people really are making "personal attacks"
against Mr Card but lets be honest, right or wrong, you reap what you sow in
Great author. Even better person.
It is amazing how having your own opinion on gay marriage will get the LGBT
zealots frothing at the mouth trying to enforce their groupthink. Forget the
fact that the movie has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. You would
think these "intellectual" and "artistic" LGBT giants would be
capable of offering criticism of the movie on the merits. How disappointing
their only method of communication is to belch personal attacks. Nice tolerance
I love the book, I love Orson Scott Card, and I'm really looking forward to
the movie. You know I have a lot of disagreements with the political
and social views and opinions of a lot of artists, especially musicians that I
adore and listen to. But that doesn't stop me from listening to their
music, and really enjoying it. Why is it that some cannot find value
in some of the art and things others do even if they disagree with them on other
things? Why must everything be a political or social statement and why must they
be so personal about them?Why seek to destroy the good a person has
done, the actual joy and pleasure they have provided to so many, just because
they disagree with something else that person did?What bigotry that
is, very shameful.