Ender's Game

[Kevin Christensen]

I think his point is that sexuality is so much more than biology, but is a mixture of biology, personal experiences, and social environments.

Bingo. 

 

A lot of what I hear in 12 step meetings is heartbreaking.  For that matter, I just finished reading Emily Pearson's Dancing with Crazy, which, with Goodbye, I Love You by her mother, Carol Lynn Pearson, and Confessions of a Mormon Boy by Steven Fales, make a Rashomon-like mosaic, that I see differently from my perspective than any of the participants.  That is life.  None of us sees things exactly the same way, and none of us are exactly what other people expect us to be.

 

And I know Scott has been formatively influenced in some of his recurrent themes by the stories of people that he knows. Mikal's Songbird, for instance.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Storm Rider]

 

A better link, with a clarifying introduction by Card (containing information that was common knowledge to those of us following the debate as it escalated due to later Rhinotimes essays) can be found here. This is the infamous quote everyone brings up but that practically no one bothers to actually read correctly. The misunderstanding hinges on the word 'should'. (I know this seems nit-picky, but bear with me.)

 

Card is not saying that laws against homosexual behavior should, must, have-to-be kept on the books. He is not calling for them to be kept on the books. He is using the word 'should' in a sense that is clarified if one inserts an [only] after it. "Laws against homosexual behavior should [only] remain on the books not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but [only] to be used when necessary."

 

In context, he is recognizing the law which had recently been upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, and calling for it to generally not be enforced -- ie, the exact opposite of what people have been claiming he said. He's trying to tell people not to use the law as an excuse to start witch hunts. In 1990, writing to a Conservative Mormon audience, that's pretty moderate, if not Liberal. (Sorry for the bolding, btw; I don't mean to sound impatient, if I do. I'm just trying to draw attention to the incorrect way that far too many people parse this sentence.) 

 

As he writes in his preface:

 

 

Anyone who has read his fiction should be able to see that Card has not been overly concerned with homosexuality; he's far more concerned with community, and marriage, and children, and the possible effects same-sex marriage might have on those things. Again, to be clear, I personally disagree with him and support same-sex marriage, but I grew up around real bigots and homophobes, and Card is just not one of them. I don't know if he consciously planned it that way, but I don't think it's an accident that [spoiler alert] the homosexual character in Songmaster who is cruelly abused for taking part in unorthodox sexual practices is named 'Josif'.    

 

From a recent interview: 

 

 

From another:

 

 

Again-again, I disagree with Card about gay marriage, and find some of his rhetoric unhelpful (comparing both the Left and the Right to the Taliban? Really?). But that doesn't mean I can't recognize that he's not a homophobic bigot, he just disagrees with me about an important and morally complicated issue. 

 

 

Jeremy, it is not appropriate to confuse the reality with the perspective that Card is a homophone, degenerate, Neanderthal Mormon that is persecuting the innocent, clean-living, highly chaste, monogamous gay people.  I was ready to get the build the wood pile and set the stake for an old fashioned witch burning.   

 

Just so everyone knows this is sarcasm about a sensitive topic; but you have to admit, humans do some of the stupidest of things regardless of what side of an issue we are found and no one needs to be dressing themselves in robes of purity.

[Storm Rider]

Oh this is a good post.  Let's see what we can do to further the "fact" that gay men are created through rape.  Is that how women become straight as well?  If we rape a lesbian will she become straight?   Just listen to yourself.  Do you really think these kinds of posts is what the brethren are encouraging members to post on the internet?  

 

Come on Cal, that is not what was said; you are exaggerating again. What was said is that some in the gay community were abused when younger. Do you know anyone within the gay community that was sexually abused when younger? I know that I do and I suspect that I know far fewer gay people than you do. Until the gay community is willing to be open minded and consider alternative viewpoints, it really is hypocritical to demand that others hear their voice and only their voice.

 

You know that I do not share this perspective, but it at least gives me pause. The reasons why someone experiences SSA is varied and there is not a single reason. I am prone to believe that they are created the way they are and move on; however, I also know bisexual men could easily be an issue of choice and not "created". For the gay community to be so insecure as to feel the need to quash every other reason for being gay is not a good sign.

[Stone holm]

Well, it looks like the anti-Mormon bigotry of SSM supporters is ramping up to a fine head of foam with the movie release of Ender's Game, based on the novel by Orson Scott Card. As some may be aware, Card has been targeted by SSM supporters with a significant amount of vitriol simply because he has been public about his opposition to SSM.

 

Here's a link from Meridian Magazine about some of the stuff that's going on. This, to me, is another clear indication of how the church and it's members are really going to be treated should SSM become the law of the land.  It's all there for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear to figure out where this is headed.

 

There are good and valid reasons, other than the purely religious ones, for opposing SSM. Those have been discussed in detail on this forum; SSM supporters consistently simply dismiss those reasons out of hand, telling us that our fears about the negative consequences of SSM are unfounded - even as those negative consequences continue to unfold before our very eyes.

 

I don't find anything particularly hateful about what Card has said. Instead, there's a willingness on his part to address the hard realities of the consequences of the kind of social experimentation that SSM entails. However, because of his opposition just to SSM, he is labeled a bigot and homophobe. It's pretty sad for our society that the McCarthyism of the past that we were able to stamp out has reincarnated itself in the guise of entrenched political correctness, where it becomes fashionable and desirable to persecute people for their religious and political viewpoints.

 

Interesting times ahead.

It is always amazing to me to watch people turn things upside down in order to claim victim hood . I once watched a Stake President try to claim that gays were coercing right wing Christians by asking for the right to marry. I would have found it to be a comical parody like the Stephen Colbert Show except we lost 6 members that day including a former Bishop. Card isn't a victim, he took a public stance using his celebrity status in order to try and influence legislation. Any celebrity who does that puts his product at risk. I intend to go see Ender's Game, but those who are calling for boycotts are not bigots.

[Danzo]

It is always amazing to me to watch people turn things upside down in order to claim victim hood . I once watched a Stake President try to claim that gays were coercing right wing Christians by asking for the right to marry. I would have found it to be a comical parody like the Stephen Colbert Show except we lost 6 members that day including a former Bishop. Card isn't a victim, he took a public stance using his celebrity status in order to try and influence legislation. Any celebrity who does that puts his product at risk. I intend to go see Ender's Game, but those who are calling for boycotts are not bigots.

 

I am curious about six people leaving the church on the same day that a stake presidents said something they didn't like.

Anythings possible, I suppose, but I find it hard to believe.  Especially a former bishop (who would have worked with stake presidents regularly and should have known that they do not walk on water and are not the final word on what the church believes). I have a suspicion that these people had more complex reasons for leaving the church than just reacting to one speech by a stake president (the same day no less).  If they were truly that sensitive, they would have left anyway when the next person said something they didn't like.

 

As long as we have a church that uses untrained volunteers to preach sermons, something will be said that isn't true, not said very well, or said the wrong way.

[california boy]

Come on Cal, that is not what was said; you are exaggerating again. What was said is that some in the gay community were abused when younger. Do you know anyone within the gay community that was sexually abused when younger? I know that I do and I suspect that I know far fewer gay people than you do. Until the gay community is willing to be open minded and consider alternative viewpoints, it really is hypocritical to demand that others hear their voice and only their voice.

 

You know that I do not share this perspective, but it at least gives me pause. The reasons why someone experiences SSA is varied and there is not a single reason. I am prone to believe that they are created the way they are and move on; however, I also know bisexual men could easily be an issue of choice and not "created". For the gay community to be so insecure as to feel the need to quash every other reason for being gay is not a good sign.

I know a Mormon boy that had his first homosexual experience when he was 16.  It was his first sexual experience.  When he came out to his family, one of the things that he told them is that he has known he was gay since he was 16.  He told him about the sexual experience.  HIs parents were all up in arms and claimed that their son had been sexually abused and that was the reason he is gay.  But when you talk to the guy, he disputes that he was abused at all.  He wanted to have that sexual experience.  No one forced him into anything.  Yet in his parents mind, they began to go from their son being sexually abused to outright rape and wanted to prosecute the person that their son had the sexual relationship with.  Their son told them he would not cooperate, again denying that he was forced to do anything he didn't want to do.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that his first sexual experience was with someone of the same sex?  That's how sexual orientation works.  My point is, straight people want to blame being gay on an early sexual experience as if it is a rare experience for a 16 year old to have sex.  Would a parent make the claim that the reason their son is straight is because he was abused by a girl when he was 16?

 

Whoever thinks that sexual orientation is caused by whatever sex they have their first sexual experience or even an early experience is just crazy.  The truth is I talk to hundreds of gay men.  I have yet to hear a SINGLE one say they were gay because they were abused, molested or raped.  Not a single one.  But I do know straight people who want to blame their son being gay on being molested.

Edited November 2, 2013 by california boy

[Glenn101]

I know a Mormon boy that had his first homosexual experience when he was 16.  It was his first sexual experience.  When he came out to his family, one of the things that he told them is that he has known he was gay since he was 16.  He told him about the sexual experience.  HIs parents were all up in arms and claimed that their son had been sexually abused and that was the reason he is gay.  But when you talk to the guy, he disputes that he was abused at all.  He wanted to have that sexual experience.  No one forced him into anything.  Yet in his parents mind, they began to go from their son being sexually abused to outright rape and wanted to prosecute the person that their son had the sexual relationship with.  Their son told them he would not cooperate, again denying that he was forced to do anything he didn't want to do.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that his first sexual experience was with someone of the same sex?  That's how sexual orientation works.  My point is, straight people want to blame being gay on an early sexual experience as if it is a rare experience for a 16 year old to have sex.  Would a parent make the claim that the reason their son is straight is because he was abused by a girl when he was 16?

 

Whoever thinks that sexual orientation is caused by whatever sex they have their first sexual experience or even an early experience is just crazy.  The truth is I talk to hundreds of gay men.  I have yet to hear a SINGLE one say they were gay because they were abused, molested or raped.  Not a single one.  But I do know straight people who want to blame their son being gay on being molested.

 

 

I don't know a lot of people that are openly gay, but I do know two and both of those were abused in their home. One, sexually, the other I do not know whether it was sexual or not. The gentleman did not go into details. Whether that was the determining factor, none of us know. All that we do know is that there was abuse in their cases.

Kevin has friends that also have reported abuse. So, it is something that we cannot rule out, at least in their cases. Abuse may not be a factor in all cases. But let's not go to war because some people have different opinions and express them respectfully.

 

Glenn

[Deborah]

I know of a young woman who is not gay but after being sexually abused by an older man won't have anything to do with men and has followed the gay lifestyle as a result. I think this is true of many young women who turn to that lifestyle and when I hear about how they were treated by men it's understandable why they would choose such. That is not to say there aren't those who may have those inclinations from the beginning but I don't think the large number of those with SSA, particulary of women, can be explained by natural inclination.

 

And btw way the movie Ender's Game was excellent and the audience when I went was mostly older adults like me.

[california boy]

I know of a young woman who is not gay but after being sexually abused by an older man won't have anything to do with men and has followed the gay lifestyle as a result. I think this is true of many young women who turn to that lifestyle and when I hear about how they were treated by men it's understandable why they would choose such. That is not to say there aren't those who may have those inclinations from the beginning but I don't think the large number of those with SSA, particularly of women, can be explained by natural inclination.

 

And btw way the movie Ender's Game was excellent and the audience when I went was mostly older adults like me.

So let me get this theory straight.  If you are a guy and you are raped or molested, then it turns you gay.  If you are a woman that was raped by a male, then it turns you into a lesbian.  Don't you think this is kinda problematic thinking?  Which is it?  Rape with the same sex at a young age makes you want to continue to have sex the rest of your life with other males?  The claim is, "everyone in the gay community knows that is how they turn gay but they don't want to let the straight public know?"  Why is it that gay rape is so amazing?  You gotta admit none of this makes any sense.  And it certainly doesn't make sense when someone like me who is in the gay community NEVER hears this as the reason they are gay.  

 

What does makes sense is when a guy feels guilty about being gay because he has grown up Mormon and when his friends/family talk to him about it and find out he had sex at a young age, then he claims the sex was "not his fault".  Since there is absolutely no data or any professional organizations that buy this "straight boys become gay men because of abuse" you gotta doubt this theory.  For some reason the only place I hear this theory repeated is by right wing wackos like Brian Fisher.

[Stone holm]

I am curious about six people leaving the church on the same day that a stake presidents said something they didn't like.

Anythings possible, I suppose, but I find it hard to believe.  Especially a former bishop (who would have worked with stake presidents regularly and should have known that they do not walk on water and are not the final word on what the church believes). I have a suspicion that these people had more complex reasons for leaving the church than just reacting to one speech by a stake president (the same day no less).  If they were truly that sensitive, they would have left anyway when the next person said something they didn't like.

 

As long as we have a church that uses untrained volunteers to preach sermons, something will be said that isn't true, not said very well, or said the wrong way.

Believe what you like, but the day the day the Stake President made the ridiculous argument in a special Ward Priesthood meeting, was the last day the former Bishop, his wife, and three kids attended after the males walked out of the meeting, they were followed by a Sister who joined them. The only time they were again in the building that I am aware of was to attend his father's funeral, his father was a former Bishop and Stake Patriarch. We have since regained enough new members to replace those active members we lost during the SSM wars.

[Freedom]

The causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. It may be biological, it may be the result of abuse, it may be depravity. Heterosexual sex has the same root causes. The fact that something is natural does not make it right, however. Cards comments on this regard are spot on. The reality is, the homosexual lifestyle is that of rampant promiscuity and immorality. Go to a gay pride parade and see how many of them behave. We all have natural inclinations that are bad. Some of us have same-sex attraction, some of us have pedophilia attractions, some bestiality, some violence, others substance abuse. I have met many heterosexuals with disturbing sexual practices that are consensual and cause no harm to others; nevertheless in the site of God they are wrong. Homosexuality is wrong and destructive to society. This comment is not homophobic. I am not afraid of gays, I see the lifestyle as damaging. I still allow them into my home just as I allow a common-law heterosexual couple into my home. I do not discriminate against them, but I should be allowed to express my views. I am not racist towards African Americans, but acknowledging the serious social ills among this ethnic group should not stop for fear of being called a bigot.

[Freedom]

So let me get this theory straight.  If you are a guy and you are raped or molested, then it turns you gay.  If you are a woman that was raped by a male, then it turns you into a lesbian.  Don't you think this is kinda problematic thinking?

Sexual abuse leads, in many cases, to sexual deviance. Homosexuality is an example of sexual deviance in the eyes of God. Some people become deviant in their heterosexual practices. I know a girl who was molested by her father. Sadly, she enjoyed the experience and is now in her late teens and had engaged in all sorts of dangerous sexual activities. Without psychological intervention, she will never be able to enjoy a lasting and loving heterosexual relationship because she has become sexually deviant. men, women, animals, no holds bar. She is addicted to sex because she was introduced to it at too young an age.

[Stone holm]

The causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. It may be biological, it may be the result of abuse, it may be depravity. Heterosexual sex has the same root causes. The fact that something is natural does not make it right, however. Cards comments on this regard are spot on. The reality is, the homosexual lifestyle is that of rampant promiscuity and immorality. Go to a gay pride parade and see how many of them behave. We all have natural inclinations that are bad. Some of us have same-sex attraction, some of us have pedophilia attractions, some bestiality, some violence, others substance abuse. I have met many heterosexuals with disturbing sexual practices that are consensual and cause no harm to others; nevertheless in the site of God they are wrong. Homosexuality is wrong and destructive to society. This comment is not homophobic. I am not afraid of gays, I see the lifestyle as damaging. I still allow them into my home just as I allow a common-law heterosexual couple into my home. I do not discriminate against them, but I should be allowed to express my views. I am not racist towards African Americans, but acknowledging the serious social ills among this ethnic group should not stop for fear of being called a bigot.

I have no problem with Card expressing his opinions, or using his celebrity status to try to influence legislation or popular opinion. But considering those who protest as a result as being bigots and trying to claim victim status, that I have a problem with. Free speech is not free in the sense of not having consequences.

[Deborah]

So let me get this theory straight.  If you are a guy and you are raped or molested, then it turns you gay.  If you are a woman that was raped by a male, then it turns you into a lesbian. 

 

Let's get this straight, yes in some cases this is true. Note I said "That is not to say there aren't those who may have those inclinations from the beginning." Those who get emotional in this argument always like to overlook the context and so the accuse people like Card of all kinds of vile motivations.

 

There are many reasons people have SSA. The fact is that the lifestyle can also be a choice because of experiences that have nothing to do with anything genetic. I think the mainstreaming of homosexuality and its acceptance contributes to many who otherwise would not chose this lifestyle to do because of prior experiences that turned them off toward the opposite sex. You many not like that but I have enough close associations to know this is true in many cases. Getting defensive about it won't change the facts.

 

[jwhitlock]

p.s.  you were quick to apply the terms of "anti-Mormon" and "bigotry" to those SSM supporters.  

 

I think its entirely possible that they are opposed to his views on SSM, and they are not necessarily anti-mormons or bigots.

 

When Card being a Mormon is mentioned in the same phrase as being a bigot, then it indeed becomes anti-Mormon bigotry.

[Stone holm]

Let's get this straight, yes in some cases this is true. Note I said "That is not to say there aren't those who may have those inclinations from the beginning." Those who get emotional in this argument always like to overlook the context and so the accuse people like Card of all kinds of vile motivations.

 

There are many reasons people have SSA. The fact is that the lifestyle can also be a choice because of experiences that have nothing to do with anything genetic. I think the mainstreaming of homosexuality and its acceptance contributes to many who otherwise would not chose this lifestyle to do because of prior experiences that turned them off toward the opposite sex. You many not like that but I have enough close associations to know this is true in many cases. Getting defensive about it won't change the facts.

Yes, and it is true of many heterosexuals. The point, I believe, he is trying to make is that such statements tend to single out gays as being primarily the result of abuse. None of the gays I know are such because of that. I am on the fence on the choice issue, but history has, I think shown, that if they want to homosexuals can stay in the closet, marry and have children. So in that sense it is a choice. And a rational person who wants to live and be fully accepted should stay in the closet and keep the door firmly closed. That is in their best interest and the best interest of their family and Ward members. Likewise, members should try and restrain their use of degrading comments and slurs as that is unbecoming of Saints and it is considerate of those with SSA amongst us who are desperately trying to keep their hands off the closet doorknob.

[Stone holm]

When Card being a Mormon is mentioned in the same phrase as being a bigot, then it indeed becomes anti-Mormon bigotry.

Nonsense.

[jwhitlock]

If society mirrored OSC's opinion back then he wouldn't have been criticized about it even in conservative Mormon circles.  And yes it was written in 1990 but as I've mentioned there are dozens of similar quotes about the subject. 

 

But lets open this subject to a bigger discussion why has homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, been so important to him for 3+ decades?

 

Phaedrus

 

I think Jeremy has responded adequately to the Sunstone article and accusations of bigotry against Card. His insight has been very helpful.

[jwhitlock]

Again he didn't want them on the books to never be enforced he wants them to be used "when necessary".  Even in his clarification he still wants the laws on the books as a tool to punish homosexuals.  Even his more recent toned down rhetoric is still bigoted.  For example in his 2004 essay Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization he wrote:

 

 

I actually think he uses the anti-marriage equality rhetoric to as the least offensive approach to further his ideas. 

 

 

Phaedrus

 

Sounds like you've already made up your mind - despite the evidence - that Card is to be demonized and sacrificed to further the agenda of SSM. It's always helpful in moving a cause forward to have someone to rally the masses against as an enemy.

Edited November 2, 2013 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

Oh this is a good post.  Let's see what we can do to further the "fact" that gay men are created through rape.  Is that how women become straight as well?  If we rape a lesbian will she become straight?   Just listen to yourself.  Do you really think these kinds of posts is what the brethren are encouraging members to post on the internet?  

 

I don't see anything in Kevin's post indicating that it's a fact that gay men are all (as you infer) created through rape. Quite the opposite. However, I do understand your concern in defending all gay behavior as purely genetic in nature without any environmental influences. After all, we wouldn't want to admit that gay behavior might just be influence through a variety of things, which would undermine the one size fits all nature of what gay activists are feeding us.

[jwhitlock]

Nonsense.

 

You need to get out more and take a look at the anti-Mormon bigotry spewed forth during the Prop-8 issue in California.  Remember the commercial of two Mormon missionaries ransacking a gay couple's house and tearing up their marriage certificate?  The fact that you try to soft-pedal SSM vitriol against the church as not, somehow, being anti-Mormon is simply ridiculous.

 

But then again, it's consistent with your stance of always supporting worldly trends when they conflict with the church.

[Deborah]

Yes, and it is true of many heterosexuals.

 

Yes, it is. Many women who have been abused when young turn to a life of promiscuity, prostitution, or pornography. Others chose same sex relationships. I've known women from both groups. There is no doubt our life experiences are reflected in our choices. This is the problem I have with activist gays. They want everyone to believe they had no choice in that matter when in fact everything is a choice. The scripture referring to the natural man as an enemy to God becomes more clear when one recognizes that following the "natural man" often leads to lifestyles and behaviors that are contrary to the Laws of God. No one ever said the choices were easy, even for heterosexual who may have compulsive behaviors because of experience, or yes, even genetics.

[california boy]

 

Quite frankly it is irrelevant whether I was born gay or whether it was something my mother ate when she was pregnant.  In the end, I am still gay. I know that causes you great pain and makes you want to attack everything about being gay.  You somehow feel it is your responsibility to comment on their "lifestyle" and the choice they have made with the cards they have been dealt.  And I know you must feel better about yourself defending the kinds of bigoted remarks that Orson Scott Card has made.  I live with those kinds of attacks every day.  Sometimes I want to argue against the misinformation about being gay. People choose to be gay.  You become gay because of the first person you have sex with, especially if you were molested.  Gays are more immoral, haven't you seen the gay pride parades?  Never mind what happens in Mardi Gras parades.  Gays caused the downfall of both the Greek and Roman Empire.  If gays are allowed to marry than straight marriage will fall apart.  People will divorce and our youth will choose not to marry the one they love, etc.  Is all you have to do is look through the ongoing threads that keep popping up about gays.

 

I guess I am under the naive belief that if you opened your heart a little and listened to someone who is gay and has gone through some of the experiences caused by bigoted behavior, you would not feel the need to start a thread defending the kinds of remarks Orson Scott Card has made. Maybe some day you too will be ashamed that this man is also a Mormon and should know better.

Edited November 2, 2013 by california boy

[jwhitlock]

Quite frankly it is irrelevant whether I was born gay or whether it was something my mother ate when she was pregnant.  In the end, I am still gay. I know that causes you great pain and makes you want to attack everything about being gay.  You somehow feel it is your responsibility to comment on their "lifestyle" and the choice they have made with the cards they have been dealt.  And I know you must feel better about yourself defending the kinds of bigoted remarks that Orson Scott Card has made.  I live with those kinds of attacks every day.  Sometimes I want to argue against the misinformation about being gay. People choose to be gay.  You become gay because of the first person you have sex with, especially if you were molested.  Gays are more immoral, haven't you seen the gay pride parades?  Never mind what happens in Mardi Gras parades.  Gays caused the downfall of both the Greek and Roman Empire.  If gays are allowed to marry than straight marriage will fall apart.  People will divorce and our youth will choose not to marry the one they love, etc.  Is all you have to do is look through the ongoing threads that keep popping up about gays.

 

I guess I am under the naive belief that if you opened your heart a little and listened to someone who is gay and has gone through some of the experiences caused by bigoted behavior, you would not feel the need to start a thread defending the kinds of remarks Orson Scott Card has made. Maybe some day you too will be ashamed that this man is also a Mormon and should know better.

 

Sounds like "opening my heart" is really a one way street, as far as you're concerned. Orson Scott Card will always be a bigot and homophobe, and that's just the way it is. There's no need to read what he has actually said or where he is coming from, or understand why his concerns with SSM might just be valid. He can only be demonized, because anyone who has any concern with the direction gay-driven agendas are taking us must automatically be written off as someone out of touch with reality.

 

Forget exploring what causes people to become gay; once they're gay it is to be treated as an immutable characteristic and untouchable. It is politically incorrect to question anything about it. And gays such as yourself are going to tell us how we really rationalize things, that all of how we perceive gays to be is just hate, and that we just need to open our hearts to "understand".

 

Frankly, this is rather disappointing, even given the diatribes you're prone to. To stereotype rationalizations for hating gays as the norm as you do above, while simultaneously stereotyping Card as a bigot for opposing SSM (and gee, if someone opposes SSM, then we can read anything at all into his motivations, can't we?) is simply ironic for someone who says I need to be more understanding.

 

If you can learn anything from the threads that have been posted here, there are significant numbers of Latter-day Saints who have gay friends, acquaintances and family members who get along just fine with them, and who seek to live in what harmony is available, despite having differing opinions on subjects such as SSM. To portray those who don't as representative of those who oppose SSM simply confirms that bigotry and stereotyping can exist on both sides of the fence. That's a shame, because those people on both sides are going to drive the polarization that is going to split this society  - NOT people like Orson Scott Card.

[changed]

Who here has seen the movie, is it kid friendly?  Sorry to derail the thread, I thought this would contain a discussion of the movie, how well it paralleled the book, if people thought they did a good job with it etc. etc.