Boycott Ender's Game?

[prisonchaplain]

Over 70% of Americans still call ourselves Christians. Most of our churches still teach traditional marriage, with chastity. 3% are LBGT. Some of them, and some of those who believe that their identity is akin to race, are now targeting anyone who holds to traditional values.

Activists call for Ender's Game boycott over author's anti-gay views | Film | guardian.co.uk

The rhetoric I am hearing is that this will come down to "human rights" vs. "religious rights." Some supporting same-sex marriages are arguing that the two are not compatible, and that human rights must win.

It's a Brave New World and 1984 all wrapped into one.

[Guest]

That's fine. They can boycott it. But, I'M FOR SURE SEEING IT!!! CAN'T WAIT! Hope they don't mess up one of my most favorite characters...

[Windseeker]

Orson Scott Card is not anti-gay he's pro-marriage (man+women). He has many positive homosexual characters in his books. Another issue driven soley by emotion and blind to reason.

[Soulsearcher]

Orson Scott Card is not anti-gay he's pro-marriage (man+women). He has many positive homosexual characters in his books. Another issue driven soley by emotion and blind to reason.

If he's anti-gay or just pro marriage is up for debate. some of his early comments were aimed at the people not in the defense of marriage. The view of his positive homosexual characters is kinda up in the air, while i haven't read any of the books with these characters, the summaries and reviews i've read don't quite paint these characters in the best light. All that being said, as i said before the last time gays asked for a boycott and people thought it was silly, i don't like the boycott idea but really until both sides (million moms, NOM, ect) end the idea of boycotts i really can't get worked up about either side being 'driven solely by emotion and blind to reason"

Oh, and i had the book as i kid but never got into it, but i really like Harrison Ford so i do want to see this, wonder if i can get my BF to go with me.

[Bini]

Also, just because a GLBT group or organisation is boycotting something, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all homosexuals. Soul doesn't care for such a rallying and I'm sure if I asked some of my friends that are lesbians they wouldn't care much for it either. While I'm on topic, I heard rumours about this movie years and years and years ago. It's exciting that it's finally coming to the big screen.

[Windseeker]

This is some great advertising for the movie. I mean it's about saving humanity and that includes homosexuals.

I'm going to see this movie with all 6 of my family members and then grab some chick-fil-a.

[carlimac]

Wow! In most movies I've seen there are straight characters that aren't portrayed in the best light. Maybe those of us who are straight should boycott those movies.

[Soulsearcher]

Wow! In most movies I've seen there are straight characters that aren't portrayed in the best light. Maybe those of us who are straight should boycott those movies.

I think it's more the fact he said that homosexuality should remain illegal and that gays were only formed out of abuse as well as his activism against SS marriage that has some people upset vs his portrayal of his characters.

[prisonchaplain]

I agree that boycotts generally make me nervous. A few decades ago I remember watching a WKRP in Cincinatti episode. The station was being boycotted by a family values group--probably over some non-family friendly programming. At the time I thought such a boycott was reasonable. I'm seeing more and more that they set the gauntlet down for today's ugliness.

I mourn that we can no longer easily discuss politics, religion, social values, etc. in most settings. The lines are so stark. Examples:

Pro-life vs. pro-death?

Pro-choice vs. No choice (male oppression?)

Free market vs. socialist

99% vs. 1%

and now Human rights vs. religious rights? Does this mean we're either pro-God or pro-Human, but can't be both?

I'm complained of this before, but I long for the day when we can once again assume that our ideological nemeses are "loyal opponents." In other words, we all long for the good of society, but differ on how to go forward.

[NeuroTypical]

I've had to readjust my internal chronometer in the past few years:

It's no longer a homosexual activist this-or-that, it's a same-sex/GLBT rights supporter this-or-that. The folks calling for these boycotts (and advocating for this stuff in general) come from all orientations now.

The social shaming pendulum has swung. 5 years ago, I was defending laws which protected business owners who refused service. Today, I'm arguing against laws which prosecute the florist in New York for refusing to do business with the gay couple. The oppressed minority are becoming the oppressors.

Remember when the gay rights supporter folk kept claiming all they wanted was for folks to live their lives in peace and not be bothered? That was 5 years ago. Now it's about crushing the opposition through legislation, education, and activism.

[Soulsearcher]

I agree that boycotts generally make me nervous. A few decades ago I remember watching a WKRP in Cincinatti episode. The station was being boycotted by a family values group--probably over some non-family friendly programming. At the time I thought such a boycott was reasonable. I'm seeing more and more that they set the gauntlet down for today's ugliness.

I mourn that we can no longer easily discuss politics, religion, social values, etc. in most settings. The lines are so stark. Examples:

Pro-life vs. pro-death?

Pro-choice vs. No choice (male oppression?)

Free market vs. socialist

99% vs. 1%

and now Human rights vs. religious rights? Does this mean we're either pro-God or pro-Human, but can't be both?

I'm complained of this before, but I long for the day when we can once again assume that our ideological nemeses are "loyal opponents." In other words, we all long for the good of society, but differ on how to go forward.

I do get what you are saying and have been pondering it myself. I just don't think either side has left much room for the other.

Take Orson Scott Card. His comments about leaving homosexuality as illegal made in the early 90's was not really meant as nasty as it sounds, but his way of trying to keep gay people in the closest. " i have no major problem with them just want them out of public" kind of thinking. A let them be as long as i don't have to deal with it kind of mentality and while i don't agree with the sentiment i understand it. We don't like to be effected by things we don't like or don't agree with. Almost like the tattoo thread going on. The problem i see is neither side can really get away from the other and be happy.

I have no problem with a persons religion, even if they don't agree with my life it's their choice and more power to them. That being said though religion can't be kept personal, it involves reaching out in to the world, trying to save or convert others and trying to make the world work in a way they think is best even if it doesn't apply to those who don't believe. Now the intent here is good an noble but does it really allow those who believe different to not be effected?

Now as much as some here might not like it the current arguments and actions by the gay community are doing the exact same thing. I some times wonder if we viewed both sides as religion if both sides might actually possibly move past some of the more petty issues and work on the ones that matter and could make harmony for both sides. The gay community through our eyes want exactly the same things religion does. A better world, a good world, a safe world, the ability to progress and come to our full potential as a person.

This is where each groups rights come at conflict. Religion(general term) doesn't like the goal of the gay community so they fight hard to block that progress. I understand why, but then the gay community takes actions to limit religions power, then religion fights harder to shape the world in their view of what's best, the gay community fights for their world view. Neither side is really caring about much beyond what they think is best and neither really cares about the supposed rights of the other side beyond really just paying them lip service.

"hate the sin not the sinner"

"i'd never force a church to hold our marriage"

"i can deny service because they are gay, my religion says i must"

"i'll sue to be treated as a person just like you want to be treated"

"the world is coming to an end now that perverts are every where"

"i can finally be honest and not scared because the religious nuts are fewer"

All common comments but neither really cares about the other side and that's how we got where we are. We all fight so hard for our view that we don't care in the least 'really we don't (we can pretend we do and give platitudes but we really don't generally care and our language tells this. Homophobe, sinner, pervert, nazi, religious taliban). If either side really cared about rights and not just their point of view we might have saw religion fight and use the money to make a huge push for a federal civil union bill so marriage was safe instead of spending money targeting gay marriage and helping negative ad campaigns, and gays would have stood with churches to defend marriage and not sued at the slightest hint of disagreement. It's become a no mans land of "well you clearly don't care about me so why should i care about you" free for all. Neither side is a good guy or a bad guy, both sides suck at wearing a white hat, i just wish we could all see it rather than keep to the "I'm right so you must be wrong and that makes me better than you" mentality

[prisonchaplain]

I think Soulsearcher and I should write a book. We could call it: An Traditionalist and a Marriage Equality proponent in Conversation - How Wide the Divide?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4733682087362993&pid=1.7&w=155&h=166&c=7&rs=1

[carlimac]

What wrong with "hate the sin, not the sinner"? I hear gays complaining about that one all the time but I really don't understand their complaint. Isn't it a middle ground? The alternatives are to hate the sin AND the sinner. Or Love the sinner and his/her sin, and that just won't work. Is it because homosexuals don't think they are sinning?

[jerome1232]

Is it because homosexuals don't think they are sinning?

I believe that is the beef.

[Soulsearcher]

What wrong with "hate the sin, not the sinner"? I hear gays complaining about that one all the time but I really don't understand their complaint. Isn't it a middle ground? The alternatives are to hate the sin AND the sinner. Or Love the sinner and his/her sin, and that just won't work. Is it because homosexuals don't think they are sinning?

What's wrong with "LDS aren't real Christians"? To the people saying it that's the view of the people saying it. I've read a number of people who would hold LDS being sinners just for being LDS. Most gays really don't see it as sinning, but for the most part it's the focus on a negative view. Also with most peoples inability to actually do this it really is cover for actions and attitudes that perpetuate the divisive issues rather than solving them.

[carlimac]

I have no problem with a persons religion, even if they don't agree with my life it's their choice and more power to them. That being said though religion can't be kept personal, it involves reaching out in to the world, trying to save or convert others and trying to make the world work in a way they think is best even if it doesn't apply to those who don't believe. Now the intent here is good an noble but does it really allow those who believe different to not be effected?

This is where each groups rights come at conflict. Religion(general term) doesn't like the goal of the gay community so they fight hard to block that progress. I understand why, but then the gay community takes actions to limit religions power, then religion fights harder to shape the world in their view of what's best, the gay community fights for their world view. Neither side is really caring about much beyond what they think is best and neither really cares about the supposed rights of the other side beyond really just paying them lip service.

If either side really cared about rights and not just their point of view we might have saw religion fight and use the money to make a huge push for a federal civil union bill so marriage was safe instead of spending money targeting gay marriage and helping negative ad campaigns, and gays would have stood with churches to defend marriage and not sued at the slightest hint of disagreement. It's become a no mans land of "well you clearly don't care about me so why should i care about you" free for all. Neither side is a good guy or a bad guy, both sides suck at wearing a white hat, i just wish we could all see it rather than keep to the "I'm right so you must be wrong and that makes me better than you" mentality

OK- this is off the OP topic a bit ( sorry Orson and PC) 1- Though you may think missionary work is selfish in nature so that religion can have a world it's comfortable with, this is off base. The LDS church missionary effort is FOR THAT PERSON/FAMILY. It's selfless. It's all so that the individual can obtain eternal life. Sure the church gets excited by numbers and some missionaries like to keep track of how many they baptize, but the underlying reason for missionary work is to bring souls to Christ.

2- What exactly IS the goal of the gay community? It seems to be a moving target.

3- Do you really believe the gay community would have EVER been satisfied with civil unions? And that they would meekly say "Oh for sure marriage is only between a man and a woman." I just can't believe that for one itty bitty moment.

[carlimac]

What's wrong with "LDS aren't real Christians"? To the people saying it that's the view of the people saying it. I've read a number of people who would hold LDS being sinners just for being LDS. Most gays really don't see it as sinning, but for the most part it's the focus on a negative view. Also with most peoples inability to actually do this it really is cover for actions and attitudes that perpetuate the divisive issues rather than solving them.

And what would solve them? For those of us who "believe" to erase homosexual sex from the sin list? That doesn't sound like a very good compromise to me. Rather one sided.

I guess it all depends on your perspective and how much you're willing to "give" the other side. I think Love the sinner, not the sin is perfect. It allows Christians ( or others who believe may not have any religions conviction but believe in proper use of anatomical parts) to maintain their belief and it allows LGBT individuals to receive pure love from humankind. Isn't that what it's really all about anyway? It's simply not fair for one side to mandate what the other is supposed to think.

Frankly, I don't care what others think about my beliefs. I was once offended when someone told me I was going to hell because I was a Mormon. Now I just smile. If YOU don't think you're sinning, what does it matter if I think you are? Some people don't see any problem at all with porn or drug use. I guess time will tell if they are problematic or not. Same with being LDS or engaging in gay sex.

Edited July 9, 2013 by carlimac

[jerome1232]

I think part of it, is many (including us religion minded folks) tend to distort it to "being gay is a sin" rather than "having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin".

In practice, I see it happen a lot, many are not able to separate the attraction from the act.

Edited July 9, 2013 by jerome1232

[Soulsearcher]

OK- this is off the OP topic a bit ( sorry Orson and PC) 1- Though you may think missionary work is selfish in nature so that religion can have a world it's comfortable with, this is off base. The LDS church missionary effort is FOR THAT PERSON/FAMILY. It's selfless. It's all so that the individual can obtain eternal life. Sure the church gets excited by numbers and some missionaries like to keep track of how many they baptize, but the underlying reason for missionary work is to bring souls to Christ.

2- What exactly IS the goal of the gay community? It seems to be a moving target.

3- Do you really believe the gay community would have EVER been satisfied with civil unions? And that they would meekly say "Oh for sure marriage is only between a man and a woman." I just can't believe that for one itty bitty moment.

1) As i said churches reach out to save the world, to bring as many people to their 'salvation' as possible. i never said it was selfish, in fact ideally it isn't. My point was that they tend not to show equal respect to those who have an opposing view of this salvation.

2) as stated above " The gay community through our eyes want exactly the same things religion does. A better world, a good world, a safe world, the ability to progress and come to our full potential as a person. "

3) Now a days no i don't think they would. If the war hadn't become what it was and religion hadn't taken the steps they did and instead worked with the community to make a federal civil union bill long ago i think they might have been more than happy with it, but that's my view.

[estradling75]

What wrong with "hate the sin, not the sinner"? I hear gays complaining about that one all the time but I really don't understand their complaint. Isn't it a middle ground? The alternatives are to hate the sin AND the sinner. Or Love the sinner and his/her sin, and that just won't work. Is it because homosexuals don't think they are sinning?

Its good in theory... but very hard to do in practice...

Then you add to that the issue of identification... When we associate part of ourselves with an aspect of our lives its not hard to be offended by an attack on that aspect.

For example.

All men are Pigs..

All women are Nags...

All mormons are going to Hell...

(In fact I am sure there will be someone who doesn't read this post very closely who comes away from this post thinking I am a Man hating/Woman Hating anti-mormon)

Therefore when we say that Homosexuality is a sin it will be very hard for someone that identifies as Homosexual not to feel that as an attack on them personally. It doesn't matter to them that we are all sinners when we are targeting their particular flavor of sin. Especially when other sins seem to be ok or at least not bring out the same response.

[Soulsearcher]

It's simply not fair for one side to mandate what the other is supposed to think.

And yet isn't this what both sides are doing?

Lets take a look at you for a second because you hit on something in another thread.

Your reaction to tattoos. Just as a comparison thats how most gay men react to female bodies or the thought of sex with a woman. Now you look at the way some reacted to you on your thread and how they assumed a lot. you look at your frustration towards some of them. Now realize you carli react the same way to gay individuals. Did you feel the love on your thread from every poster, did you feel you were loved but your attitude or behavior was not? Instead of really trying to understand your issue some seemed to just kind glance at the facts already had some solid ideas in their mind and told you what you should do and how to do it without understanding it really wasn't part of the issue. Were you more helped by the people who listened and might show empathy and a need to understand or were you more helped by those who had a solid answer even if they really didn't listen or understand and just kinda went with their usual fall back answer?

[Bini]

Soul, I appreciate your composure in these hot topics. I'm always impressed in how you word things.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul, I appreciate your composure in these hot topics. I'm always impressed in how you word things.

I appreciate that quite a bit. I try to spend a lot of time picking just the right words hoping they will reflect respect while at the same time relaying my point.

[carlimac]

And yet isn't this what both sides are doing?

Lets take a look at you for a second because you hit on something in another thread.

Your reaction to tattoos. Just as a comparison thats how most gay men react to female bodies or the thought of sex with a woman. Now you look at the way some reacted to you on your thread and how they assumed a lot. you look at your frustration towards some of them. Now realize you carli react the same way to gay individuals. Did you feel the love on your thread from every poster, did you feel you were loved but your attitude or behavior was not? Instead of really trying to understand your issue some seemed to just kind glance at the facts already had some solid ideas in their mind and told you what you should do and how to do it without understanding it really wasn't part of the issue. Were you more helped by the people who listened and might show empathy and a need to understand or were you more helped by those who had a solid answer even if they really didn't listen or understand and just kinda went with their usual fall back answer?

Hmmm. Food for thought, but not exactly how I saw things. Honestly, I felt most helped by the ones who agreed with me completely. (It's nice to know someone else feels the same way.) I had no qualms with others who have a different opinion of tattoos, or who misunderstood me. I tried to clear up their misunderstanding of what I was saying but had no expectation that they would change their view. None!

Taking this back to the OP , I truly believe that those in the LGBT camp, if they are going to get along with those who disagree or don't understand them, are going to have to develop a thicker skin and let things roll off their backs a little more. As LDS we have to do the same thing. From listening to my sons and nephews and countless other missionaries tell of their experiences, they have been very respectful if someone really makes it clear they have no interest in the church. They simply leave them to their lives. They don't go crying foul and raising a stink about it. I think the LGBT community could apply some of this same attitude when someone doesn't believe their "message". There are enough people in the world that do. They should feel pleased. It's not a matter of enormous consequences ( Yes I've heard of the bullying and murders and suicides-exceptions) if the whole world doesn't agree with their premise and lifestyle. It would be an impossible task to change so many minds.

So therefore I think they should look at the real meaning behind "Love the sinner, not the sin." We all sin in different ways, we are all imperfect. We are a very diverse set of human beings. To come to a complete consensus is not possible and is an illogical expectation. So why don't we just relax a little, let others live according to their conscience and if we get a little love along the way, count that as a great blessing. They certainly aren't going to gain any respect and may even damage their chances of getting luv if they throw a tantrum every time someone who isn't pro-homosexuality makes a movie or writes a story or opens a restaurant. For pity sakes, just go get your chicken sandwich or get your wedding cake somewhere else. Ya know?

[annewandering]

I read a very interesting blog by Orson Scott Card a year or so ago. Trying to refind it now. What is talked about was OSC's views on Enders Game and Homosexuality. For those wanting to second guess what he really says it is a very good resource. It is quite amazing how peoples words, even written words, can be twisted. This is his website. It says all his stuff is on this site so maybe you will have better luck finding his discussion than I am at the moment. Hatrack River - The Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card