Lionsgate Respond to Ender's Game Boycott

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

The Lyre:
And, again, yes, they do give them the same rights.

Not in name, but civil partnerships give exactly the same rights as marriage. The only difference is the term used, and before this decade is done that will have changed. At least, in the UK it will have.

So, gay people are the same as straight people, only they don't deserve to have the same marriage as straight people?

The Lyre:
Everything else is already taken care of, by law, in the form of anti-discrimination laws etc.

Ah huh. So, anything there is a law against isn't a problem?

By way of example, if during the next election, a potential PM was openly gay, what do you think that'd do for his or her chances of being elected? Of even getting that far in the first place?

The Lyre:
There's just a small but obstructive minority in the way.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that it's a small group behind it, so what? They are not without success in their obstructionism.

thaluikhain:

The Lyre:
And, again, yes, they do give them the same rights.

Not in name, but civil partnerships give exactly the same rights as marriage. The only difference is the term used, and before this decade is done that will have changed. At least, in the UK it will have.

So, gay people are the same as straight people, only they don't deserve to have the same marriage as straight people?

This always bugged me; Why does it matter what it's called? It's the rights that come with the civil partnership that matter, not the name. I get that it's segregation, but it's still a pretty mighty win and nothing to scoff at.

ninjaRiv:
This always bugged me; Why does it matter what it's called? It's the rights that come with the civil partnership that matter, not the name. I get that it's segregation, but it's still a pretty mighty win and nothing to scoff at.

Certainly, it's a big win, a massive improvement over nothing.

But it's a compromise, a way to allow the bigots to retain "sanctity of marriage" or whatever. It was designed to stop short of actual equality.

thaluikhain:

ninjaRiv:
This always bugged me; Why does it matter what it's called? It's the rights that come with the civil partnership that matter, not the name. I get that it's segregation, but it's still a pretty mighty win and nothing to scoff at.

Certainly, it's a big win, a massive improvement over nothing.

But it's a compromise, a way to allow the bigots to retain "sanctity of marriage" or whatever. It was designed to stop short of actual equality.

What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

ninjaRiv:
What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

As a step forward, it's fair enough. But it should be remembered that it's fair from the end of the journey. Other places in the world have adopted full gay marriage, I don't see why the UK couldn't.

Personally I'd say it might have been a problem in that it allows people to pretend that the problem has been fixed, rather than merely improved upon, but that's a separate issue.

thaluikhain:

ninjaRiv:
What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

As a step forward, it's fair enough. But it should be remembered that it's fair from the end of the journey. Other places in the world have adopted full gay marriage, I don't see why the UK couldn't.

Personally I'd say it might have been a problem in that it allows people to pretend that the problem has been fixed, rather than merely improved upon, but that's a separate issue.

True, I agree with you there... It shouldn't BE an issue but a step forward's a step forward.

ninjaRiv:
What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

Are you really asking what's wrong with something to the point of "separate but equal?"

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:
What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

Are you really asking what's wrong with something to the point of "separate but equal?"

Not a fan of compromise, eh? Seems like a big step forward, to me is what I'm saying.

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:
What's wrong with a bit of compromise, though? I mean, I get it; all should be equal. But, realistically, it's never going to be that way (at least not any time soon).

Are you really asking what's wrong with something to the point of "separate but equal?"

Not a fan of compromise, eh? Seems like a big step forward, to me is what I'm saying.

Compromising equality with inequality just gets you inequality, so no, I'm not a fan. And since "a big step forward" isn't the goal, I don't think we should be stopping until we take another big step, stomp on the bigots, and actually reach the goal.

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

Are you really asking what's wrong with something to the point of "separate but equal?"

Not a fan of compromise, eh? Seems like a big step forward, to me is what I'm saying.

Compromising equality with inequality just gets you inequality, so no, I'm not a fan. And since "a big step forward" isn't the goal, I don't think we should be stopping until we take another big step, stomp on the bigots, and actually reach the goal.

I'm all for that, too but forcing it will only make things worse.

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:

Not a fan of compromise, eh? Seems like a big step forward, to me is what I'm saying.

Compromising equality with inequality just gets you inequality, so no, I'm not a fan. And since "a big step forward" isn't the goal, I don't think we should be stopping until we take another big step, stomp on the bigots, and actually reach the goal.

I'm all for that, too but forcing it will only make things worse.

And stopping short of the goal for the sake of not upsetting the filth of humanity ensures that it won't get better.

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

Compromising equality with inequality just gets you inequality, so no, I'm not a fan. And since "a big step forward" isn't the goal, I don't think we should be stopping until we take another big step, stomp on the bigots, and actually reach the goal.

I'm all for that, too but forcing it will only make things worse.

And stopping short of the goal for the sake of not upsetting the filth of humanity ensures that it won't get better.

Nobody said anything about stopping, though.

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:

I'm all for that, too but forcing it will only make things worse.

And stopping short of the goal for the sake of not upsetting the filth of humanity ensures that it won't get better.

Nobody said anything about stopping, though.

No, you just want people to accept an unequal compromise for the sake of compromise, and not to keep pushing for actual equality, because that's apparently some far off dream.

LifeCharacter:

ninjaRiv:

LifeCharacter:

And stopping short of the goal for the sake of not upsetting the filth of humanity ensures that it won't get better.

Nobody said anything about stopping, though.

No, you just want people to accept an unequal compromise for the sake of compromise, and not to keep pushing for actual equality, because that's apparently some far off dream.

No, you're assuming that's what I think. What I actually think is that compromise isn't such a bad thing and it's certainly a pretty great start. Yes, equality is pretty far off in some ways, such as the words used, but it's a lot closer in other ways.

ninjaRiv:

They're the same enough, imo.

How?

ninjaRiv:

When Hunter S. Thompson was alive, buying his books meant funding the guy's drug habit. And he was an utter prick who DID cause physical harm to people. Would his work was great and his political views were pretty cool. Didn't see a lot of boycotting there. A lot of our purchases on movie tickets, DVDs, albums, concert tickets, etc go towards funding drug habits and a lot of BS.

Drug habits are self-destructive, and when they infringe on the rights of others its usually by way of something that is already criminal such as theft, fraud etc. Also causing physical harm to someone without cause is also a crime itself. So yeah, Hunter S. Thompson was nuttier than a Snicker's bar, but as far as I know he never turned that money over to a platform that actively sought to suppress the rights of others.

Card is already wealthy enough that even a 100% boycott of the movie would have absolutely no effect on his well being, even if he is getting a percentage cut rather than a fixed contract amount.

The Ender's Game series is a damn good set of books that has nothing to do with the viewpoints people are upset over, to my knowledge the movie has nothing of the sort wedged in there. Frankly, given the admirable moral codes overshadowing his books, I was quite surprised to hear about his personal views.

I currently intend to see the movie in question at some point. That doesn't mean I agree with his personal viewpoint, just that I think it has no effect on the quality of his work. I suggest that others do so as well if they have an interest, or don't if not, this particular protest serves no purpose.

Gordon_4:

ninjaRiv:

When Hunter S. Thompson was alive, buying his books meant funding the guy's drug habit. And he was an utter prick who DID cause physical harm to people. Would his work was great and his political views were pretty cool. Didn't see a lot of boycotting there. A lot of our purchases on movie tickets, DVDs, albums, concert tickets, etc go towards funding drug habits and a lot of BS.

Drug habits are self-destructive, and when they infringe on the rights of others its usually by way of something that is already criminal such as theft, fraud etc. Also causing physical harm to someone without cause is also a crime itself. So yeah, Hunter S. Thompson was nuttier than a Snicker's bar, but as far as I know he never turned that money over to a platform that actively sought to suppress the rights of others.

Also he had a hate boner for Nixon, which is a position I can get behind. (Phrasing wholly intended)

As I said before, I'm not depriving anybody of money they were promised or owed by not buying a ticket. Don't act like they were due my money. Only when I decide that I want the transaction to take place will they get any. I may not have watched this movie for any number of reasons and boycotting is just as valid as any other. In fact, I haven't even watched Star Trek Into Darkness yet, not because I don't want to but because I didn't have the time. Anyway, trying to guilt-trip people won't really work.

Heronblade:
Card is already wealthy enough that even a 100% boycott of the movie would have absolutely no effect on his well being, even if he is getting a percentage cut rather than a fixed contract amount.

That only makes it more likely that any additional income would be spent on NOM.

The Ender's Game series is a damn good set of books that has nothing to do with the viewpoints people are upset over, to my knowledge the movie has nothing of the sort wedged in there. Frankly, given the admirable moral codes overshadowing his books, I was quite surprised to hear about his personal views.

As far as the consumer need be concerned, the products of sweatshop/slave and child labor are similarly divorced from what buying them is supporting. A pair of shoes is a pair of shoes.

ninjaRiv:
[...]
Thing is, we're not just talking about actors, producers, directors, etc. Lighting techs, sound techs, costume department, etc are basically seeing a chunk of their life shit on. I don't know about you but I'd feel pretty bad about that...

Oh come on, either cut the crap or go watch every shitty movie ever produced, because I can tell you, there always is someone who worked hard on the piece in question. Take someone like me for example: While I'm morally on board with the boycott, the primary reason I'm not going to watch the movie is that I didn't particularily enjoy reading the source material (for reasons that somewhat mirror John Kessel's http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm ). Am I supposed to watch it, because I'm sure the boom-mike operator did a swell job? Would you suddenly start to read Twilight because the editor corrected all typos (which actually would be an impressive case of a job well done) or do you decide whether or not to spend money based on what you think you'll gain from the experience rather than the adequacy of its execution? While this might not be the case for you, for some people the thought that they support a view of the world, completely opposed to their own and intent on, if not capable of harming other people, actually lessens their enjoyment of a given piece of art/entertainment.

thaluikhain:

So, gay people are the same as straight people, only they don't deserve to have the same marriage as straight people?

It's like you don't even read the posts you respond to.

The overwhelming majority of the public believes that gay people do deserve the same rights as straight people in every respect.

Again, I've already said this. This isn't speculation - the only thing we can go on is what modern society claims to want, and surveys say they believe that homosexuals should be equal to heterosexuals.

Stop painting the world as this giant hate machine that's doing everything it can to hurt gay people. It's like you actually want homosexual people to be terrified of a society that, in reality, completely accepts them. You can't point to the tiny minority and say "Oh, this means everyone thinks gay people don't deserve rights" when you're replying to a post that gives several examples of how mainstream society completely accepts homosexual couples and individuals.

thaluikhain:

Ah huh. So, anything there is a law against isn't a problem?

...Pretty much, yeah.

I don't know if you've noticed, but only a tiny percentage of the population are serial killers and rapists.

It's almost like outlawing behaviour under threat of punishment actually works.

Do bigots still exist? Sure, but they now have very tight borders they aren't allowed to cross, unless they want pretty hefty fines and/or jail time. I don't really even know what your point is.

Not to mention that if anything even close to the majority of people hated homosexuals, these laws would have never passed in the first place. The simple fact that they exist means mainstream society wants equality for homosexuals.

thaluikhain:

Assuming, for sake of argument, that it's a small group behind it, so what? They are not without success in their obstructionism.

Again, you don't have to assume anything - you could always google this shit yourself before making all these groundless assumptions.

No, wait, let me guess - someone you know was harassed in the street one time so that means that the entire world hates their sexuality/ethnicity/religion.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to sound the alarms and proclaim modern society an irredeemable mess because of the actions of a bigoted minority. Their successes are, in modern society, minimal at best. They can slow down the process but that's about it. In western society you need majority favour - or at least, majority apathy - to affect policy and legislation.

thaluikhain:
Other places in the world have adopted full gay marriage, I don't see why the UK couldn't.

LifeCharacter:

Are you really asking what's wrong with something to the point of "separate but equal?"

I feel like there's a serious misunderstanding here. Civil partnerships and marriage provide exactly the same rights.

When it comes to the principal of it, the abstract concepts, of course you're right - homosexuals should be allowed to marry to be treated the same.

But as for 'equality' or 'rights' - homosexuals already have that. By law. That's genuinely inarguable - civil partnership is exactly the same legal process with the same legal responsibilities and privileges. It's not 'separate but equal' because it isn't separate. It isn't a different process. It's a spade they call a shovel - doesn't change the fact that it's still a spade.

Rectifying the one last, symbolic difference is something that needs to happen, yes - but that's all it is. Symbolic. It will not change anything for homosexual people. It will not give them new rights, because they already have those rights, nor will it automatically change what people believe, because, again, majority support is already theirs.

Going from civil partnerships to marriage is the equivalent of a stamp of approval, crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Practically speaking it won't have any difference - religious organisations won't change overnight, nor will they be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies. You are kidding yourself if you think that gaining the term marriage is anything more than a symbolic victory.

The Lyre:
The overwhelming majority of the public believes that gay people do deserve the same rights as straight people in every respect.

Again, I've already said this. This isn't speculation - the only thing we can go on is what modern society claims to want, and surveys say they believe that homosexuals should be equal to heterosexuals.

Which is why there is so little resistance to gay people being allowed to marry?

Again, if during the next election, a potential PM was openly gay, what do you think that'd do for his or her chances of being elected? Of even getting that far in the first place?

The Lyre:
...Pretty much, yeah.

Huh. That would explain a lot.

The Lyre:
In western society you need majority favour - or at least, majority apathy - to affect policy and legislation.

Exactly.

The Lyre:
Going from civil partnerships to marriage is the equivalent of a stamp of approval, crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Practically speaking it won't have any difference

And so it hasn't been done, and won't be any time soon because?

thaluikhain:

The Lyre:
The overwhelming majority of the public believes that gay people do deserve the same rights as straight people in every respect.

Again, I've already said this. This isn't speculation - the only thing we can go on is what modern society claims to want, and surveys say they believe that homosexuals should be equal to heterosexuals.

Which is why there is so little resistance to gay people being allowed to marry?

Again, if during the next election, a potential PM was openly gay, what do you think that'd do for his or her chances of being elected? Of even getting that far in the first place?

The Lyre:
...Pretty much, yeah.

Huh. That would explain a lot.

The Lyre:
In western society you need majority favour - or at least, majority apathy - to affect policy and legislation.

Exactly.

The Lyre:
Going from civil partnerships to marriage is the equivalent of a stamp of approval, crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Practically speaking it won't have any difference

And so it hasn't been done, and won't be any time soon because?

Because marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is defined as being part of a religious ceremony; civil unions are not. My parents have never been 'married', they've been in a civil union for the past twenty odd years because they were never 'married' by a priest. They were joined in a civil union in the eyes of the government by a justice of the peace.

We use marriage in an incorrect way. The reason we construe the two is because up until the 1900's, there was no real separation between most nations state church and the state itself. Getting married by the church was as good as getting a civil union from the state.

thaluikhain:

Which is why there is so little resistance to gay people being allowed to marry?

Again - for the third or fourth time - the majority of Western society is in favour of gay marriage.

This is half of why both Labour as a whole and David Cameron as PM have claimed to be in favour of gay marriage. David Cameron is even planning to base part of his next campaign on it. He's already promised that if he's voted in next term, gay marriage will be a reality.

So at the very least, our political parties believe it's what people want. Cameron clearly doesn't think it's political suicide.

The resistance to gay marriage, for hopefully the last time, is the minority - and a small one at that. That's why despite all this 'resistance' you keep talking about, the legislation is still moving forward, the bill was still passed at over a 2 to 1 majority. Even old white guys in parliament know which way the wind is blowing.

You're pretty much the only kind of person that still thinks the world hates gay people. Even bigots know they're the minority now.

thaluikhain:
Again, if during the next election, a potential PM was openly gay, what do you think that'd do for his or her chances of being elected? Of even getting that far in the first place?

Did you even think about this question before you asked it? Because the answer is obvious.

A gay PM campaigning heavily on gay rights;

+ Gains the majority vote of gay-rights activists, homosexuals that favour enough of his other policies, and any slacktivist that thinks painting homosexuals as victims is 'progressive'.

- He loses the votes of the bigots who vehemently oppose homosexuality.

Now then, I don't know specifically which way that falls - there's a lot of different demographics there, but I can tell you that it certainly isn't political suicide. We already have over a dozen openly gay MPs, certainly with more to come - again, though, you probably aren't aware of that. It's something that's happening in reality.

Amazingly, those openly gap MPs still have their jobs. It's almost like the world doesn't give a shit.

thaluikhain:

The Lyre:
In western society you need majority favour - or at least, majority apathy - to affect policy and legislation.

Exactly.

You don't read posts, do you? Bigots don't have anything close to the majority favour. They don't even have anything close to an even split.

This is a waste of my time - and on the Escapist, that's saying a lot.

thaluikhain:

And so it hasn't been done, and won't be any time soon because?

Read every other post I've written - I've already answered this several times. It is being done. Parliament is actively trying to get it done. The parties, on the whole, support it. The public, on the whole, supports it.

"But I want it right now! I want everyone in the world to like exactly what I like!"

Well, tough shit. The democratic process is slow as shit for straight people, too. Equality doesn't guarantee anyone a utopia.

Bentusi16:
Because marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is defined as being part of a religious ceremony; civil unions are not. My parents have never been 'married', they've been in a civil union for the past twenty odd years because they were never 'married' by a priest. They were joined in a civil union in the eyes of the government by a justice of the peace.

We use marriage in an incorrect way.

That's using a slightly unusual definition of marriage there, religion doesn't have a monopoly on religion in the usual sense.

Somewhere in the long chain from raw material to share holder payout, a person whose views and actions one find disagreeable will nigh-inevitably profit from any purchase made. So the simple reason of avoiding hypocrisy keep people from boycotting, since actually living up to the standard it entails would require them to drop practically all purchases, certainly those non-essential to their survival.

Of course, there's also the matter of the boycotts collateral damage effect on sympathetic people, and potentially denying the ability of other consumers to see the thing.

Simonism451:

ninjaRiv:
[...]
Thing is, we're not just talking about actors, producers, directors, etc. Lighting techs, sound techs, costume department, etc are basically seeing a chunk of their life shit on. I don't know about you but I'd feel pretty bad about that...

Oh come on, either cut the crap or go watch every shitty movie ever produced, because I can tell you, there always is someone who worked hard on the piece in question. Take someone like me for example: While I'm morally on board with the boycott, the primary reason I'm not going to watch the movie is that I didn't particularily enjoy reading the source material (for reasons that somewhat mirror John Kessel's http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm ). Am I supposed to watch it, because I'm sure the boom-mike operator did a swell job? Would you suddenly start to read Twilight because the editor corrected all typos (which actually would be an impressive case of a job well done) or do you decide whether or not to spend money based on what you think you'll gain from the experience rather than the adequacy of its execution? While this might not be the case for you, for some people the thought that they support a view of the world, completely opposed to their own and intent on, if not capable of harming other people, actually lessens their enjoyment of a given piece of art/entertainment.

Actually, I was suggesting we judge the movie by its own merits. If it's a good movie, watch the fucking movie. Card isn't going to take over the world if it turns out to be as awesome as the source material.

Knight Templar:

ninjaRiv:

They're the same enough, imo.

How?

I don't know if it's too late to warn you about the low content post...

To me it's the same because it's like a big, silly slap fight. Trying to hurt each other in some hope that it'll make a difference while all you're really doing is making a mess.

thaluikhain:

Bentusi16:
Because marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is defined as being part of a religious ceremony; civil unions are not. My parents have never been 'married', they've been in a civil union for the past twenty odd years because they were never 'married' by a priest. They were joined in a civil union in the eyes of the government by a justice of the peace.

We use marriage in an incorrect way.

That's using a slightly unusual definition of marriage there, religion doesn't have a monopoly on religion in the usual sense.

My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

Marriage is religious in nature, and is completely and utterly unimportant to the civil authority. What they want is a civil union confirmed by the civil authority. Hence why my marriage to my thirteen brides within the Church of Example doesn't mean diddly squat because theirs no marriage license.\

To put it another simpler way: Everyone who is married legally is in a civil union. Not everyone who is in a civil union is married.

ninjaRiv:

I don't know if it's too late to warn you about the low content post...

Its not, but there's nothing to warn me about.

To me it's the same because it's like a big, silly slap fight. Trying to hurt each other in some hope that it'll make a difference while all you're really doing is making a mess.

Well you are wrong in your assessment. Somebody wishing to cause the suffering of others and acting to further that wish, being responded to in a way so as to not support/limit his ability to harm others isn't "Trying to hurt each other".

At best you've vastly oversimplified the issue and are giving one side undue credit with a false equivocation. What you are saying here reminds me of people saying the government are just as bad as criminals because if you commit a crime they lock you up. I'm not saying your point is quite that absurd, but the same aspects that must be ignored for that argument to make sense are the same that you ignore in yours.

Knight Templar:

ninjaRiv:

I don't know if it's too late to warn you about the low content post...

Its not, but there's nothing to warn me about.

To me it's the same because it's like a big, silly slap fight. Trying to hurt each other in some hope that it'll make a difference while all you're really doing is making a mess.

Well you are wrong in your assessment. Somebody wishing to cause the suffering of others and acting to further that wish, being responded to in a way so as to not support/limit his ability to harm others isn't "Trying to hurt each other".

At best you've vastly oversimplified the issue and are giving one side undue credit with a false equivocation. What you are saying here reminds me of people saying the government are just as bad as criminals because if you commit a crime they lock you up. I'm not saying your point is quite that absurd, but the same aspects that must be ignored for that argument to make sense are the same that you ignore in yours.

You're not going to get a warning for a one word post? Did the low content rule change...?

I can see how people think boycott's are a great idea and I don't know enough to pretend they're not, I just don't think it's anywhere close to the best way. It's all very messy. But yes, obviously the people boycotting are nowhere near as bad as Card and his silly group but they're not exactly right, imo. I think it's messy and could be dealt with in better ways.

ninjaRiv:

You're not going to get a warning for a one word post? Did the low content rule change...?

Context, a question to allow further discussion typically isn't likely to receive a warning. But I'm no mod, if you doubt this or feel I should have been hit with a warning all the same, feel free to hit report, PM a mod or go to their user group.

I can see how people think boycott's are a great idea and I don't know enough to pretend they're not, I just don't think it's anywhere close to the best way. It's all very messy. But yes, obviously the people boycotting are nowhere near as bad as Card and his silly group but they're not exactly right, imo. I think it's messy and could be dealt with in better ways.

I more or less agree with what you are saying here. Partly because I'm not convinced boycotts like these even work, but even if they did there are more effective ways to react. However I don't think a boycott is an invalid action here.

Knight Templar:

ninjaRiv:

You're not going to get a warning for a one word post? Did the low content rule change...?

Context, a question to allow further discussion typically isn't likely to receive a warning. But I'm no mod, if you doubt this or feel I should have been hit with a warning all the same, feel free to hit report, PM a mod or go to their user group.

I can see how people think boycott's are a great idea and I don't know enough to pretend they're not, I just don't think it's anywhere close to the best way. It's all very messy. But yes, obviously the people boycotting are nowhere near as bad as Card and his silly group but they're not exactly right, imo. I think it's messy and could be dealt with in better ways.

I more or less agree with what you are saying here. Partly because I'm not convinced boycotts like these even work, but even if they did there are more effective ways to react. However I don't think a boycott is an invalid action here.

Whoa whoa, I don't feel like you need a warning at all. I was warning you so you could go back and edit some extra content into it. Just because we more or less disagree on something doesn't mean I want you in trouble with mods. But that does seem like a pretty vague rule...

Ok, I think we mostly agree on boycotts, then. I may have gotten up and my high horse a little, being concerned about those who worked on the movie bu the basics of what I said, I stand by; the movie has more to do with the actors, technicians, directors, writers, etc than it does Card and his hate group.

Bentusi16:
My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

This argument doesn't work because marriage existed before state religion (or even organised religion as we understand it) and exists in countries that have never had organised religious institutions backed by the state.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked