Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[Chronos]

[with an air of aloofness and a yawn]

This thread is need to remain on topic.

~Chronos

[end aloofness and returns to his condescending throne on high]

[BCSpace]

If I were to take up the logic of those fighting against OSC on this matter, then I would have never seen the LOTR movies or The Hobbit because homosexual and gay activist Ian McKellan plays a major part in them.

[Stone holm]

If I were to take up the logic of those fighting against OSC on this matter, then I would have never seen the LOTR movies or The Hobbit because homosexual and gay activist Ian McKellan plays a major part in them.

Well that would have been your prerogative but you might find your range of movies somewhat limited. Course most people went to those movies because of the books and I doubt that Tolkein took a stand on the issue.

[Sleeper Cell]

Isn't that rock pond's point? No current organization invented boycotts as a means to suppress the "free speech" or as a means of "mind control" or "thought control" of another. Radical groups, regardless of affiliation, use boycotts to suppress another "free speech". And yes "he started it" isn't a very good reason; but wouldn't it be hypocrisy to condemn one act of "free speech" suppression via a boycott, and not condemn another "free speech" suppression via a boycott - which I gather is rock ponds point.

Not necessarily. Hypocrisy is often confused with “being logically inconsistent,” or “being unaware of similar acts.” But since you ask, I condemn all attempts to use boycotts to suppress free speech. Bad ideas should be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, not in the economic marketplace.

BTW, I seriously doubt that anybody has ever claimed that any current organization invented the boycott. It goes back, at least, to Capt. Boycott’s day. But it really doesn’t matter who “invented it” or when. As I said previously, the argument “everybody else does it” was another childhood excuse that never worked for me.

[Sleeper Cell]

Yes, that is my point. Thank you.

Last year, One Million Moms boycotted JC Penney because they hired Ellen DeGeneres (who happens to be a lesbian) as their spokesperson. Their goal was to hit JC Penney's bottom line in order to have DeGeneres fired. I disagreed with their position but I certainly wouldn't call it "mind control". They had every right to choose where to spend their money and to encourage others with similar thinking to spend (or not spend) their money accordingly.

So, Sleeper Cell, is the One Million Moms boycott an attempt at intimidation? Or is it free speech?

Not familiar with OMM beyond the occasional sound bite. Its boycott probably was an attempt at intimidation, although apparently not a very good one as it didn’t affect my shopping habits or those of anybody I know. (I never even burned my JC Penny charge card; was I supposed to do that?). Sometimes a boycott (such as the much more publicized boycott of Disney) is so pathetically unsuccessful that one is tempted to wonder whether it was more of a case of the boycott advocates attempting to gratify their own narcissism.

For what its worth, the only reasons I have ever “boycotted” a business were “bad service,“ “bad products,” etc.

That said, boycotts against major corporations to get them to change their official corporate or political polices (Disney, etc.) are not comparable to boycotts to get a corporation to fire an individual. In the present discussion, the individuals are DeGeneres and Card. However, these cases are probably still not comparable. It is one thing to attempt to intimidate someone; it is quite another to do so when you actually have the ability to intimidate them (because, for example, they are not independently wealthy). I don’t know Card’s financial situation, but I would imagine that DeGeneres has a lot more money and would still have plenty of money and plenty of job offers no matter what OMM does In other words, OMM doesn’t really have the ability to economically destroy DeGeneres. On the other hand Card is probably much more vulnerable.

Re: the term “mind control,” I was responding to a statement made by an earlier poster:

I do feel that boycotting … is one of the strongest ways that an average person on the street can make a statement that he disagrees with someones political beliefs that they feel are harmful to society.

“Mind control” was not my term of choice. However, boycotting someone for their political beliefs does sort of sound like “mind control” to me.

[Sleeper Cell]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want the right to speak out and condemn homosexual behavior, then we need to allow others to exercise the same rights. If we claim the right to condemn homosexual behavior and SSM from the pulpit, then we have to respect the right of others to do the same thing from their pulpits. Both sides of this dispute have tried to bring pressure to bear. Some have somewhat unwillingly been sucked into the maelstrom because their organization or a church they were affiliated with took a stance which caused them to be painted with a certain position as well. So long as this controversy is used as a wedge issue by either side, then we should expect boycotts to erupt on both sides. That happens in a free country, and its one of the good things about a market economy. People are now boycotting all kinds of products for all kinds of reasons -- that is very American. Orson Scott Card said and did what he thought was right, that was his privilege, and its also his privilege to let the consequence follow. This boycott is a consequence, are you going to deny him the privilege of enjoying the consequences of his actions?

Sigh.

Nobody is saying that boycotts aren’t legal, Nobody is saying that “speaking out,” “condemning,” etc. should not be allowed.. I am unaware of any opponent of SMM who doesn’t respect the right of those who support SSM to do so from the pulpit.”

I cannot recall anybody condemning those churches which opposed Prop 8, but let that pass. Speaking out, condemning, and supporting/opposing legislation is not the same as attempting to destroy people for disagreeing with you.

Some have somewhat unwillingly been sucked into the maelstrom because their organization or a church they were affiliated with took a stance which caused them to be painted with a certain position as well. So long as this controversy is used as a wedge issue by either side, then we should expect boycotts to erupt on both sides. That happens in a free country, and its one of the good things about a market economy.

I am not quite clear about what you are saying here. Surely, you are not saying that it is a “good thing” for people to boycott someone simply because he is a member of a church which took a stance that they didn’t like?.

BTW, aren’t boycotts that target individuals (directly or indirectly through their places of employment) sort of a secular version of “shunning.?”

This boycott is a consequence, are you going to deny him the privilege of enjoying the consequences of his actions?

The same argument could be used (and probably was used) to justify the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s. Was that OK with you? The same argument could be used to justify boycotting people for “gay behavior.” Suppose society still had the same laws and the same attitudes toward “gay behavior” as it did during the 1950s. Would you be OK with boycotts against companies which hire gay people? If a 1950s company is forced by a boycott to fire an employee for “gay behavior“ (especially in an atmosphere where other companies would be afraid to hire him for fear of also becoming a boycott target), would you still say of the fired employee:

This boycott is a consequence, are you going to deny him the privilege of enjoying the consequences of his actions?

Apparently, a few people are calling for a boycott of Florida and/or local Florida businesses because they don’t like the Zimmerman verdict. Such a boycott, should it materialize, would be legal free speech.. Do you see where this sort of thing could lead? For starters, consider the ramifications on the ability to receive a fair trial. The next jury pools will be drawn from a community that knows that if a jury “votes wrong” their community/state could be hit by a boycott that could seriously damage the local economy. (“Vote right” or you may lose your job and your home).

[rockpond]

Not necessarily. Hypocrisy is often confused with “being logically inconsistent,” or “being unaware of similar acts.” But since you ask, I condemn all attempts to use boycotts to suppress free speech. Bad ideas should be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, not in the economic marketplace.

BTW, I seriously doubt that anybody has ever claimed that any current organization invented the boycott. It goes back, at least, to Capt. Boycott’s day. But it really doesn’t matter who “invented it” or when. As I said previously, the argument “everybody else does it” was another childhood excuse that never worked for me.

Wow... there actually is a Charles Cunningham Boycott from whom the term originated. I did not know that! Thanks for including that little interesting tidbit!

[Stone holm]

Sigh.

Nobody is saying that boycotts aren’t legal, Nobody is saying that “speaking out,” “condemning,” etc. should not be allowed.. I am unaware of any opponent of SMM who doesn’t respect the right of those who support SSM to do so from the pulpit.”

I cannot recall anybody condemning those churches which opposed Prop 8, but let that pass. Speaking out, condemning, and supporting/opposing legislation is not the same as attempting to destroy people for disagreeing with you.

I am not quite clear about what you are saying here. Surely, you are not saying that it is a “good thing” for people to boycott someone simply because he is a member of a church which took a stance that they didn’t like?.

BTW, aren’t boycotts that target individuals (directly or indirectly through their places of employment) sort of a secular version of “shunning.?”

The same argument could be used (and probably was used) to justify the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s. Was that OK with you? The same argument could be used to justify boycotting people for “gay behavior.” Suppose society still had the same laws and the same attitudes toward “gay behavior” as it did during the 1950s. Would you be OK with boycotts against companies which hire gay people? If a 1950s company is forced by a boycott to fire an employee for “gay behavior“ (especially in an atmosphere where other companies would be afraid to hire him for fear of also becoming a boycott target), would you still say of the fired employee:

Apparently, a few people are calling for a boycott of Florida and/or local Florida businesses because they don’t like the Zimmerman verdict. Such a boycott, should it materialize, would be legal free speech.. Do you see where this sort of thing could lead? For starters, consider the ramifications on the ability to receive a fair trial. The next jury pools will be drawn from a community that knows that if a jury “votes wrong” their community/state could be hit by a boycott that could seriously damage the local economy. (“Vote right” or you may lose your job and your home).

I personally have not joined the anti Zimmerman chorus as I agree you would be undermining our judicial system concerning jury trials. However, it is quite appropriate to boycott a State which passes laws of which you do not approve. That happens all the time by consumers and businesses.

[jim_mason]

Not necessarily. Hypocrisy is often confused with “being logically inconsistent,” or “being unaware of similar acts.” But since you ask, I condemn all attempts to use boycotts to suppress free speech. Bad ideas should be defeated in the marketplace of ideas, not in the economic marketplace.

BTW, I seriously doubt that anybody has ever claimed that any current organization invented the boycott. It goes back, at least, to Capt. Boycott’s day. But it really doesn’t matter who “invented it” or when. As I said previously, the argument “everybody else does it” was another childhood excuse that never worked for me.

Thank you for the clarity.

I am quite confident, that many who condemn the "Ender's Game" boycott as suppressing speech, yet fully support suppressing the free speech of the boycotters.

[california boy]

You do a lot of that...excusing your actions because someone else does it. It is one of the poorer ways to build a foundation for your position, but hey, some moms did not teach their little boys the fundamentals of two wrongs don't make it right. But, you go on with your bad self and keep it going. If it works; never change your tactics; and for goodness sakes never, ever try to choose the right.

I never justified anything with the argument of "they started it". This is what I posted.

I am a bit confused by your post here. Are you only talking about gays or are you also talking about all of the "christian" boycott groups such as Million Moms and Focuse on the Family etc. who seem to call for a boycott of someone every week over their stance on gay marriage. Here is a partial list of the companies that those who are against gay marriage have asked the public to boycott.

I was only pointing out the hypocrisy that some have when they whine about "the gay agenda" dictating social behavior when there is an equal "agenda" by those who are against gay marriage trying just a desperately to dictate social behavior. It wasn't those that support gay marriage that started this thread.This whole thread was started because some Mormon thought it was unfair to boycott "Enders Game" and punish Orson Scott Card for his inflammatory remarks about gay marriage. If anything I was pointing out how pointless it is to cry victim over the called boycott.

[california boy]

Thirty years ago, society considered any “gay behavior” as “bad behavior.“ Suppose society still had the same attitude? . Would you still be OK with “society” using boycotts to "point out" what it regarded as “bad behavior?

I don't have to go back 30 years to find a group tha considers "gay behavior" as "bad behavior" do I. The church has not changed its position on this subject. It is still alive and well. So what is your point?

What concerns me even more is how easily your argument evolved from justifying boycotting people for their “bad behavior,” to boycotting people for their statements and even for their beliefs.

What does this even mean. There are beliefs on both sides of this coin. And both sides use boycotts to try and change beliefs. That was my only point.

As far as I know, nobody is saying that this boycott is illegal. However, not everything that is legal is ethical. For example, exercising your right to “free speech” in order to intimidate someone else from exercising his right “free speech.”

I agree with you that not everything that is leagal is ethical. But there is noting unethical about refusing to do business with a person who inflamitory statements you disagree with even if it doesn't effect you personally.

Now like I said, I don't think that boycotting "Enders Game" is effective or justified, but that is mostly because not everyone who is responsible for Orson Scott Cards beliefs worked on the film.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I personally have not joined the anti Zimmerman chorus as I agree you would be undermining our judicial system concerning jury trials. However, it is quite appropriate to boycott a State which passes laws of which you do not approve. That happens all the time by consumers and businesses.

THere is a reason I refuse to go to New York. Soon CA will be on that list. If it was not for Disney Land I would never go to CA, my wife loves that place too much, so do the kids. So I have to make a decision.

[Erin15]

1) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for someone to try to get Card fired for opposing gay marriage and 2) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for Card (or anyone) to try to get someone fired for supporting gay marriage?

1) Yes

2) No

But, don't you see, your position makes you virtually indestinguishable from groups you oppose like the KKK, because your ethics and morals are not applied to everyone equally, they are applied differently based on whether or not they agree with you.

That position is just evil.

[Calm]

Don't buy it. The KKK applied their standard based on someone's skin colour or ethnic group, not on whether or not there was agreement.

[Stone holm]

1) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for someone to try to get Card fired for opposing gay marriage and 2) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for Card (or anyone) to try to get someone fired for supporting gay marriage?

But, don't you see, your position makes you virtually indestinguishable from groups you oppose like the KKK, because your ethics and morals are not applied to everyone equally, they are applied differently based on whether or not they agree with you.

That position is just evil.

I also don't buy it. We aren't talking about burning crosses in someone's yard or lynching people. Free speech has a consequences, it is suppose to affect culture, standards, etc. Just because I support someone's right to say whatever they want with a few exceptions, doesn't mean that I can't in turn suggest that a person not be patronized for having said it. If somebody wants to use the "N" word with or without the "r" at the end, they have the right to do so -- but people also have the right not to associate with people who do so and the right not to patronize persons, shopowners, or businesses who do so, or employ people who do so.

[Erin15]

Just flip it around then.

If Orson Scott Card was a gay marriage advocate, and a group was trying to get him fired for it, would it still be wrong? Would you oppose it then?

Bullying tactics are wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with the opinion being bullied.

Thought-policing is wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with the position being persecuted.

As someone who lived through McCarthyism, I'll tell you right now, you have to oppose all "witch hunts" if you want a free society. Because sooner or later, it will be you on the stand being threatened.

[Calm]

I don't think that boycotting to get someone fired is appropriate unless they are using their job to advocate for their position. If then, then sure...boycott them as it is an appropriate response.

I think that if one wants to sincerely change behaviour and not just suppress it, causing resentment and long term consequences that aren't what one wants, that one needs to have the consequence naturally follow the behaviour, whether we are talking a country, an organization or an individual and whatever behaviour we want to change, large or small.

[Stone holm]

Just flip it around then.

If Orson Scott Card was a gay marriage advocate, and a group was trying to get him fired for it, would it still be wrong? Would you oppose it then?

Bullying tactics are wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with the opinion being bullied.

Thought-policing is wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with the position being persecuted.

As someone who lived through McCarthyism, I'll tell you right now, you have to oppose all "witch hunts" if you want a free society. Because sooner or later, it will be you on the stand being threatened.

No, I wouldn't oppose it then either. The thing is Card would not be being listened to except for his quasi celebrity status. He is in a sense trading on his celebrity status to get a pulpit. The difference between this and the McCarthy Era is that McCarthy was using his Congressional committee, in other words the government, to try and destroy people for their beliefs. That is a completely different thing. Unfortunately, McCarthy's governmentally backed witch hunt had the support of certain segments of the American society. You cross the line when you start invoking government aid in a witch hunt.

[Daniel2]

The conversations continue.... The following article from a gay blog and the attached comments share a different view of why some gays feel the boycott is justified, and others, not so much:

To head off the growing boycott of the upcoming Ender’s Game film due to antigay comments made by the book’s author Orson Scott Card and opposition to marriage equality, the film’s director, Gavin Hood, and stars have have made their support for LGBT equality clear today at San Diego Comic Con.

“My view is I’ve been a member of the Courage Campaign (a pro-equality group organization in California) for many years,” said Hood to the Associated Press. “I’m a little distressed by his point of view on gay marriage.” Hood, who won an Academy Award for directing the 2005 film Tsotsi, then reminded that the book isn’t about that marriage equality.

He added: “I hope people can still appreciate the book because I think he wrote a great book, and the themes and ideas in the book, I think, are universal and timeless and applicable, and I hope the book will still be appreciated as a great work of art, even though I don’t agree with the author. I optioned the book, not an author, and I love what the author said in that book.”

Although Card, a Mormon board member of NOM, turned down an interview request by AP, he released a statement to Entertainment Weekly recently in which he claimed the issue surrounding his opinion on marriage equality is now “moot” given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute,” Card said.

Asa Butterfield, who plays the film’s title character, offered “I agree with rights for everybody” and insisted that Card’s views shouldn’t change how audiences receive the film or book. ”You can’t blame a work for its author,” the 16-year-old British actor said.

“I think it’s slightly bitterly ironic that [themes of kindness and compassion] that are present in the book are not carried through on [Card's] particular view on gay marriage,” Hood added.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS POST?

26 Comments:

No. 1 · mykelb

No one has yet to reveal what Card was paid or what he will get paid as the film is released. Until I have those facts, I’m not going to be seeing it or buying any of Card’s books.

Jul 18, 2013 at 6:15 pm · @Reply ·

No. 2 · Jared MacBride

I wouldn’t buy anything from a homophobic organization, and I won’t knowingly give a dime to a board member of a homophobic organization. In my world, those things aren’t open for discussion.

Jul 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm · @Reply ·

No. 3 · Deepdow

It’s not just his view on gay marriage that this clueless ****bag should be distressed by, but the fact that Card has advocated for imprisoning gays in the past, among other things. I knew about Card’s gay hate for some time now. It’s pretty surprising that no one involved in the production knew about it, or cared.

Jul 18, 2013 at 6:27 pm · @Reply ·

No. 5 · redcarpet

Ya’ll better tell your nerd friends then. Cuz they are all up in arms that they can’t go see their kiddy sci-fi space opera. Just look at the comments section on theverge.com

No one wants to admit that OSC was paid for the rights to his novel. Seeing this movie is paying for that, even if it is just a penny from every ticket sold.

And that 16 year old needs to learn... If you can’t blame a work for it’s author then who...DO you blame!? OSC is still making money off it.

Jul 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm · @Reply ·

No. 6 · ncman

The director is a bit uninformed if he believes the recent court decision has made the issues of LGBT equality moot. Marriage equality is not the “law of the land”, not by a long shot. And it is still legal to discriminate against the LGBT community in employment and housing, etc…..

Further, if this film is successful, it is part of a trilogy and Card will benefit with MORE MONEY for MORE FILMS. And, he will use that money through both NOM and the Mormon church to continue to fight against the LGBT community.

Will the production company and this director come out RIGHT NOW and guarantee that they will not make any more films in the future of this author’s work? there will be no parts 2 and 3 of this trilogy?

Jul 18, 2013 at 6:35 pm · @Reply ·

No. 7 · AshNYC

@ncman: CARD (the author) was the one to say the recent court decisions have made the equality issues moot. Not the director. Other than that I agree, the more successful the movie is the more money for Card to use against us.

Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm · @Reply ·

No. 8 · SewperDewper

@ncman: Card stated that the issue was “moot,” not the director.

@Jared MacBride: Would you see the movie if the ticket was given to you for “free”? Even then, there’s still the opportunity cost of watching the movie…

That being said, if someone isn’t going to buy a ticket to the movie, cool. Don’t “support” Card. But then don’t read articles related to the movie, or watch the trailers, or end up watching the movie when it hits Netflix in 18 months. All of those things have come, and will come about because he was “bought off” with the rights from the studio, which are only possible because he did that, and thus, he is indirectly profiting from it.

I, on the other hand, will be seeing the movie on opening day, because I’m a fan of the book and I am going to support the filmmakers and the company producing the movie… even if a buck or two winds up in Card’s pocket. I mean, the person who checks out your bag at Whole Foods could be a Republican. Imagine the horror that the $5 avocado you just bought winds up as .65 cents in that person’s paycheck. Oh dear.

Jul 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm · @Reply ·

No. 9 · Sparkyu1

This man campaigns for sodomy laws to be put back on the books. He wants us locked up in prison for who we are. I’m a damnsite more that “distressed” by that

And Lionsgate is paying this man money, a great deal of money, knowing what Card espouses and that he puts his money behind those actions. They can line up and say what wonderful allies they are, honest, but they’ve made it clear how little that means – how little we mean – to them.

I won’t be seeing this film, I won’t put money in the pocket of a man who uses it to try and oppose every right we have. I won’t add my presence to the watches to increase the liklihood of more of Card’s works becoming films and handing him more money. I won’t be watching this film because I don’t want companies like Lionsgate so easily dismissing bigotry. I won’t be watching this film because I want companies like Lionsgate to be as unwilling to work with Card as they would be with an avowed KKK member and as quick to drop him as companies were (rightly) quick to drop Paula Deen. I won’t be watching this film because I don’t want to increase Card’s profile within the mainstream and downplaying his hatred while giving him a platform from which to spout it.

I don’t want to put money into the hands of those who support, protect and brush over bigotry

Jul 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm · @Reply ·

No. 10 · MikeE

@SewperDewper: It’s easy to rationalize like that, isn’t it? It helps you sleep better at night, doesn’t it?

If the movie is a success because people LIKE YOU go to see it and pay to see it, then the studio will option the next novel, and the one after that. You will, in effect, be allowing the studio to fund O.S.C in his anti-LGBT crusade.

If the 1st movie is a financial success, then Lionsgate will WANT to make the next book into a film, and O.S.C. will be in a position to ask for more money for the rights to his book.

O.S.C. isn’t a cashier at a Whole Foods. He spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on his anti-LGBT crusade. He has a say in how the fight against equality is fought. He IS a major player in the onslaught against OUR rights. Your comparison to the poor cashier is repugnant, and indicates a painfully low level of comprehension of the stakes involved.

Go see the movie. And remember that you saw it when one day they come for you and take you away to a concentration camp. Because THAT is exactly what O.S.C. would like to happen. He wants all of us, L.G.B. and T to face firing squads.

Jul 18, 2013 at 7:46 pm · @Reply ·

No. 11 · Caliban

Oh HELL no!

Orson Scott Card is playing the “tolerance” card now?

Where was HIS tolerance when he wrote essays saying homosexuality SHOULD be criminalized, and incarceration for the “extreme cases?”

Does that sound like tolerance to you?

Where was his tolerance when he wrote the BOOK “Hamlet’s Father,” a work of fiction that must have taken MANY months to write and edit, wherein a gay man is not only a child molester but hopes to rape his own son?

Does that sound like tolerance to you?

Where was his tolerance when he joined the board of NOM, the most vocal to oppose gay marriage across the country?

Does that sound like tolerance to you?

But now he has a movie coming out based on one of his early books, and he’s one of the co-producers so stands to make money off the ticket sales, and suddenly NOW he makes a plea for “tolerance” and goes so far to say that if there IS a boycott that just proves how intolerant WE are?!

**** him. I hope the movies is terrible, but either way I’d rather nail my **** to floor and do jumping jacks than buy a ticket and give that piece of **** a DIME.

Jul 18, 2013 at 7:53 pm · @Reply ·

No. 12 · Caliban

@SewperDewper, why not just cut out the middle man and send your check to NOM directly?

I’m so glad to hear that you’re willing to sell out your own rights to see a goddamn MOVIE. How proud of your situational ethics you must be!

Jul 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm · @Reply ·

No. 13 · thomwatson

What bothers me most about the article in question is the throw-away line: “Card has expressed opposition to gay marriage in the past and that has led some to call for a boycott.”

What a tepid statement and what an incomplete piece of reporting. Card has said that a government that endorses marriage equality should be overthrown; he has said that a gay couple getting married engages in “theft” of what Card “holds most dear” and constitutes a “death blow” upon Card’s own marriage while amounting to just “playing dress up”; has written even that people are not born gay but become so mostly through “disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.” Card is not just opposed to marriage equality, he actually sits upon the board of the group most directly responsible for fighting against such equality, and which has increasingly been turning its attention to attacking gay people more generally, endorsing so-called conversion therapy, and labeling gay parents as de facto child abusers.

This is more than just merely “opposition to gay marriage.”

Jul 18, 2013 at 8:25 pm · @Reply ·

No. 14 · Will L

@mykelb: Yeah. If he was paid a flat amount and will get nothing further from the film, I may see it. If there is any chance that he will get a percent of the profits or residuals, then I will stay away from it.

Jul 18, 2013 at 8:26 pm · @Reply ·

No. 15 · Cam

“”Although Card, a Mormon board member of NOM, turned down an interview request by AP, he released a statement to Entertainment Weekly recently in which he claimed the issue surrounding his opinion on marriage equality is now “moot” given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute,” Card said.”"

____________________________________

1. Funny how he says it’s a moot point now, when before he advocated the violent overthrow of the govt. if gay rights advance.

2. Also funny, he claims that him advocating for laws making our existence illegal and trying to jail us and legalize us being fired for being gay is “Disagreeing” with us.

The studio needs to learn that hiring somebody like Card or buying his movie will cause a backlash.

Jul 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm · @Reply ·

No. 16 · ncman

@Will L: even if he doesn’t get a percentage of this film’s profits, if this film is successful, he will get a second film and MORE MONEY. This story is part of a trilogy. If successful, there will be 3 films in total.

Jul 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm · @Reply ·

No. 17 · Fitz

If someone had made those kinds of comments about ANY other minority group, there is no way the film would be made, and no way anyone but the least socially aware would see it. If you feel like this film is a make or break for your life, then PLEASE.. buy a ticket to another movie and sneak in.

Jul 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm · @Reply ·

No. 18 · crowebobby

@Fitz: Good idea. There’s a “teenager” in it who’s under the age of thirty. We may never get to see that again.

Jul 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm · @Reply ·

No. 19 · Elloreigh

“I’m a little distressed by his point of view on gay marriage.”

Only a little?

Haven’t read the book, have no plans to, and will not see the movie or spend my money on anything connected with it that could possibly serve to enrich its bigoted creator. Don’t care how great it’s supposed to be. I esteem my liberty more than that.

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:29 pm · @Reply ·

No. 20 · Elloreigh

@mykelb: I don’t care if he doesn’t get a red cent from it – I don’t care to see his reputation enriched either, because it will just aid him in his other endeavors.

Jul 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm · @Reply ·

No. 21 · tookietookie

@Elloreigh: I caught that too. A little? Slightly? Just code for “Homophobic but give us your $$$ anyway.”

Jul 19, 2013 at 12:58 am · @Reply ·

No. 22 · Bellerophon69

If you wish to boycott this movie and anything and everyone attached to it, feel free to do so. But here’s the thing; while OSC has and will continue to make $$$ from this book and the movie, considering how long ago it was written, almost thirty years ago, and that it probably will not spawn a spat of new “Enders” books (and the sequels already written suck) or movies, the die is already cast and the fat is burning in the fire. If you chose to see it, realistically, it isn’t going to make things any worse for us gays. There won’t be brownshirts marching us off to the ovens, gay marriage won’t be repealed, and the Mormon church won’t be any closer to building their anti-gay “Death Star”. The guy isn’t going to get any un-richer, you won’t “cure” him of homophobia any more than he can cure us of “gays”, and the studio, cast, crew and author will probably not make a huge blockbuster profit out of the movie either way because it’s not that generally appealing. I’ll probably wait until it’s out on basic cable in 3 months, partly because I don’t want any OSC/Enders “Bashers” screaming shrilly in my ear, partly because I like Sci Fi and the book was “OK” when I read it but not worth spending $7.50 on. As far as OSCs homophobia goes, Michelle Bachmann and Steve King are way more dangerous!

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 am · @Reply ·

No. 23 · TxHeat

SewperDewper , I guess some self loathing Gays are still around. I feel sorry for you.

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 am · @Reply ·

No. 24 · LaTeesha

Free Paula Deen. I mean why is her stuff suddenly unacceptable, but this guy is ok. Oh, because he just said things about gays. Had he said this stuff about black people the call for a ban would be far and wide. But, demand to keep laws on the books so that gays can be imprisoned is no big deal.

Jul 19, 2013 at 1:48 am · @Reply ·

No. 25 · ezywonder

@mykelb: The way everyone connected to this f*** is doing a fancy dance is HYSTERICAL. Rots of ruck at the box office, haters. lmao

Jul 19, 2013 at 5:29 am · @Reply ·

No. 26 · 1EqualityUSA

If this were the last film on Earth, I wouldn’t go see it.

Jul 19, 2013 at 8:53 am · @Reply ·

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/enders-game-director-discusses-potential-boycott-gay-rights-at-comic-con-20130718/#ixzz2ZUqQnIfU

[Daniel2]

The publicity the boycott is generating, IMO, will likely help the movie, more than hurt it. Harrison Ford weighs in:

GSN » Entertainment » Ender's Game is not anti-gay, says Harrison Ford

Ender's Game is not anti-gay, says Harrison Ford

Calls for boycott of military science fiction film over the anti-gay views of its author Orson Scott Card are misguided according to its star and its director

19 JULY 2013 | BY JOE MORGAN

Hollywood actor Harrison Ford has said his new film Ender's Game is not homophobic, saying the views of anti-gay author Orson Scott Card are 'completely separate' from the movie.

The actor was responding to the launch of a website Skip Ender’s Game by US activist group Geeks Out, which urges movie goers to boycott the film and avoid giving money to its author.

Card is a board member of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage and has called for gay sex to be criminalized.

But Ford stressed the film does not address gay people at all.

'No part of the story concerns Mr Card’s theories about society in terms of gay issues or homosexual issues,' he said while promoting the film at San Diego Comic Con.

'I think he has a right to his opinions and has also made it clear that it was a battle that he fought and lost and would like to get on with the rest of life.'

Set more than a century into the future, the film is about a boy sent to military school to prepare for an alien invasion.

Ford said he’s glad Card told this story, and is glad to have had the chance to be part of it, adding: 'I think it’s an imaginative and complex story. I was delighted to be involved with playing a character that wrestles with these concerns and brought them into public consciousness.'

Ford's view has been supported by the film’s director Gavin Hood, who has been a member of the LGBT advocacy group the Courage Campaign for many years.

'I’m a little distressed by his point of view on gay marriage,' Hood said. 'However, the book is not about that issue.'

Hood said the book’s themes of kindness and compassion are what drew him to the story, and he was surprised by Card’s position on gay issues.

'I think it’s slightly bitterly ironic that those themes that are present in the book are not carried through on his particular view on gay marriage,' he said.

'I hope the book will still be appreciated as a great work of art, even though I don’t agree with the author. I optioned the book, not an author, and I love what the author said in that book.'

Lionsgate said they will host a benefit where they will show Ender's Game to raise money for LGBT charities.

Lionsgate, the movie studio releasing the movie, released a statement this week distancing itself from Orson’s anti-gay views and encouraging viewers to still come see the film. - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ender%E2%80%99s-game-movie-faces-boycott-over-anti-gay-author140713#sthash.uxR3iAWR.dpuf

Ender's Game is due for general release in the UK on 25 October, Australian cinemas on 31 October and US cinemas a day later.

- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/enders-game-not-anti-gay-says-harrison-ford190713#sthash.DkTUEHun.dpuf

[Daniel2]

Other great comments:

What bothers me most about the article in question is the throw-away line: "Card has expressed opposition to gay marriage in the past and that has led some to call for a boycott."

What a tepid statement and what an incomplete piece of reporting. Card has said that a government that endorses marriage equality should be overthrown; he has written, in the past, that laws criminalizing homosexuality should remain on the books, not used "indiscriminately" but "as needed to send a message"; he has said that a gay couple getting married engages in "theft" of what Card "holds most dear" and constitutes a "death blow" upon Card's own marriage while amounting to just "playing dress up"; has written even that people are not born gay but become so mostly through "disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse." Card is not just opposed to marriage equality, he actually sits upon the board of the group most directly responsible for fighting against such equality, and which has increasingly been turning its attention to attacking gay people more generally, endorsing so-called conversion therapy, and labeling gay parents as de facto child abusers.

This is more than just merely "opposition to gay marriage."

I have read all too many posts of people on other sites regarding this film and proposed boycott where people truly think that this is simply about objecting to Orson Scott Card's casually expressed opinion on the subject.

The MSM's abject failure to recognize the degrees to which someone is opposed to gay rights and/or gay people in general only contributes to the fallacious idea that gay rights advocates are being petty and unreasonable. *WE* get labeled as being bullies even if we object to someone who's viciously anti-gay. You'll hear people remark "Why can't you just let people have their own opinion?"

Well for one the opinions are not equal and opposite. Equal rights for everyone (including the ones who don't want others to have them). Is not the same as, rights only for us and discrimination against those we don't like.

But also, people are not getting the picture that the one's we go after, are NOT just simply average people who have an opinion. They are either prominent public figures who are advocating discrimination, or they are highly vocal and/or activity engaged in activities to denigrate gay people, denigrate our lives, and deny us our rights (like Mr. Card).

Does anyone believe there would be calls for a boycott by the gay and gay-supportive community if Orson Scott Card had no anti-gay history, but being known to be a Mormon, was asked in an interview "What's your opinion on same-gender marriage?" and he responded "Well I'm a Mormon and our religion teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman ."

If that was all it was. Nobody would care. And every Gay Geek in the world would be happily going to see Ender's Game. But that's what the MSM makes it seem like, even though it's far far worse than that.

[Stone holm]

Other great comments:

What bothers me most about the article in question is the throw-away line: "Card has expressed opposition to gay marriage in the past and that has led some to call for a boycott."

What a tepid statement and what an incomplete piece of reporting. Card has said that a government that endorses marriage equality should be overthrown; he has written, in the past, that laws criminalizing homosexuality should remain on the books, not used "indiscriminately" but "as needed to send a message"; he has said that a gay couple getting married engages in "theft" of what Card "holds most dear" and constitutes a "death blow" upon Card's own marriage while amounting to just "playing dress up"; has written even that people are not born gay but become so mostly through "disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse." Card is not just opposed to marriage equality, he actually sits upon the board of the group most directly responsible for fighting against such equality, and which has increasingly been turning its attention to attacking gay people more generally, endorsing so-called conversion therapy, and labeling gay parents as de facto child abusers.

This is more than just merely "opposition to gay marriage."

I have read all too many posts of people on other sites regarding this film and proposed boycott where people truly think that this is simply about objecting to Orson Scott Card's casually expressed opinion on the subject.

The MSM's abject failure to recognize the degrees to which someone is opposed to gay rights and/or gay people in general only contributes to the fallacious idea that gay rights advocates are being petty and unreasonable. *WE* get labeled as being bullies even if we object to someone who's viciously anti-gay. You'll hear people remark "Why can't you just let people have their own opinion?"

Well for one the opinions are not equal and opposite. Equal rights for everyone (including the ones who don't want others to have them). Is not the same as, rights only for us and discrimination against those we don't like.

But also, people are not getting the picture that the one's we go after, are NOT just simply average people who have an opinion. They are either prominent public figures who are advocating discrimination, or they are highly vocal and/or activity engaged in activities to denigrate gay people, denigrate our lives, and deny us our rights (like Mr. Card).

Does anyone believe there would be calls for a boycott by the gay and gay-supportive community if Orson Scott Card had no anti-gay history, but being known to be a Mormon, was asked in an interview "What's your opinion on same-gender marriage?" and he responded "Well I'm a Mormon and our religion teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman ."

If that was all it was. Nobody would care. And every Gay Geek in the world would be happily going to see Ender's Game. But that's what the MSM makes it seem like, even though it's far far worse than that.

Oh you don't think us straight Mormons are victims? What a terribly biased position, of course we are victims....can't you see our marriages, families and entire civilization crumbling because of our victimhood?

[california boy]

How many Mormons would be boycotting a film written by Governor Boggs?

[Calm]

I've read some of his writing....I probably wouldn't be going, but it wouldn't have to do with his anti-mormonism but my total lack of interest in the movie...

[Sleeper Cell]

I don't have to go back 30 years to find a group tha considers "gay behavior" as "bad behavior" do I. The church has not changed its position on this subject. It is still alive and well. So what is your point?

I did not say “group.” I said “society.” Thirty years ago, society had a much different attitude toward “gay behavior” than it has now. Do you disagree?

You seem OK with boycotts when “your side” is strong enough to effectively use them. Would you still be OK with boycotts, if “your side” were so weak and had so little clout that, as a practical matter, only the “other side” could effectively use them? Suppose nobody cared whether or not “your side” boycotted a business? Suppose the members of your group were so despised that most businesses actually preferred that you did not patronize them? In such a situation, the “other side” could hurt individual members of your group with a boycott, but "your side" couldn’t hurt your opponents. Would you be OK with boycotts under these circumstances?

What does this even mean. There are beliefs on both sides of this coin. And both sides use boycotts to try and change beliefs. That was my only point

.

Both sides? My “side” is not a monolithic organization. It is an ad hoc coalition of many individuals and groups, some of which have a long history of demeaning other groups in the coalition. Don’t know about the “other side.”