Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

kailus13:

jetriot:
People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Boycotts are simply a way for people to say en masse that they dissaprove. He can say what he wants but people will always judge him for that.

This right here. It's amazing how many people forget this. Also thee irony of Orson asking for tolerance. This was by far my biggest laugh of the day. SO I guess there's that.

Its really simple, people are allowed to boycott and should if they disagree with his viewpoint, regardless of the movie. Why? Because the terrorist scouts(adorable little mass murders) could sell the worlds most amazing cookies in the world, but by buying them, your funding and supporting their viewpoints and activities(Popsicle stick explosive vests,etc). In the same way, by paying for the movie, even if its a good movie, your supporting a horrible bigot and utter lunatic. I don't honestly believe any movie, being a short term source of entertainment, it worth giving any money to someone I consider to be a monster.

It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights. Which I cant see that as anything but positive. What he is wondering now is if the pro-gay marriage crowd will take their victory gracefully or will be sore winners. I think it is a valid point but the discussion is about how he is only doing this for monetary gain and how much of a bigot he is so everyone should boycott everything he does and thus prove his point for him...go team!!!

How much should someone hate someone else for expressing an opposing viewpoint? Especially concerning rights, which are about the most abstract thing on the planet.

Loki_The_Good:

This right here. It's amazing how many people forget this. Also thee irony of Orson asking for tolerance. This was by far my biggest laugh of the day. SO I guess there's that.

also, just the notion that we're "destroying" him by not buying his books.

I don't get it. Is he entitled to our money even if we don't want his product?

Spearmaster:
It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights.

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

What he is wondering now is if the pro-gay marriage crowd will take their victory gracefully or will be sore winners. I think it is a valid point but the discussion is about how he is only doing this for monetary gain and how much of a bigot he is so everyone should boycott everything he does and thus prove his point for him...go team!!!

Love that strawman.

However:

He is still a bigot. Simply saying that the courts have spoken doesn't change that. And there's really no reason to support him. He is likely doing this for financial gain. To be honest, I couldn't care less.

He wants to call gays abominations and pedophiles and all sorts of other nasty things and that's fine. I've never tried to stop him, but nor do I have any intent to support him, especially since he only begrudgingly said "okay, the courts have spoken."

If that's proving his point, then he has a really shitty point.

How much should someone hate someone else for expressing an opposing viewpoint? Especially concerning rights, which are about the most abstract thing on the planet.

Let me ask you something. Does the fact that you're defending a man who hates people for a fact of nature by asking about hate not cause some sort of dissonance in your mind?

I don't think most of the people boycotting him even hate him. I know I don't. Doesn't mean he's not a bigot. He is. And he hates people for something worse than stating an opinion: he hates them for being made different.

If he was railing against black people, would you be so quick to defend his hatred by condemning the hatred of others? I suppose so, as rights are the most abstract thing on the planet and therefore slavery is probably okay, MIRITE?

(edited to correct the use of subjective. I don't know how I switched those words, but I blame my fingers).

I've read the litany of Ender's Game books from 1 to 11 - the series as a whole reflected no opinion of gay rights, and I can respect that. The author managed to separate his personal beliefs from his literary work. If anything the only disconcerting thing of the entire series was how in love Ender was with his sister Valentine.

Now we get to the crux of the argument; due to being in the public eye, he is susceptible to the public, fair and square. When Chik Filet (a noted Christian organization) went on strike against gay marriage then the people who ate at the restaurant supported them in that. I have friends who completely stopped eating at Chik Filet just because the stance they took against gay rights, and I feel that it was the right choice for them. As a consumer you take a stance on what you're willing to support just by coughing over money. People are allowed their virtues and their vices, if you do not wish to support the author, do not watch the movie, do not pay for his books. It's that simple.

A person can retract something that they felt was wrong, age makes people change opinions, and people grow with time. I will not say that this is the case for Card, due to the timing on the matter, but his opinion is his opinion. We kind of have to live with that, and all in all don't watch the movie if you have morally conflicting choices about the author's personal opinions.

However the Ender's Quarter; Ender's Game, Speaker of the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind were excellent works into science fiction. Especially with Speaker of the Dead (my favorite one of the series) a wonderful insight into a space-faring human race and how they would deal with xenophobia. How we, as humans, would approach another civilization we didn't understand, in an effort to co-exist.

theApoc:
Indeed it is culturally based. Which is why I believe you cannot legislate its interpretation. There is no legal reason that I can think of why I as an individual should not be able to partner with anyone I choose from a legal standpoint. THAT kind of support and cooperation, regardless of the reasons for such a partnership will always benefit society.

Right, I'd even consider a non-romantic financial union of sorts. If even businesses can do it, why not people? Though this union would be a little stronger than that with all the visitation rights and such.

Ceremonial marriage, while tied to the process of a legal union, does not actually create that union(an actual license is what truly matters, the ceremony is a formality and a religious official ends up being little more than a notarized witness of the bond).

Exactly. As per my example that we had our best man notarize the document, not the minister.

So, the key to this argument IMO is as you said, separating the legal aspect from the ceremony. So fighting for gay-MARRIAGE to me becomes little more than a pointless quest for acceptance, and THAT is where I find fault in the whole idea of "gay rights". Laws are not meant to force acceptance, they are meant to enforce compliance. And while a religious official CAN marry two people, they are not the only conduit for people to get married, thus a church refusing to marry same sex couples is NOT discriminatory and should not be looked at as such.

What people are upset about, regardless of their acceptance, is the idea that they HAVE to agree with someone else's lifestyle. That they have to accept someone else's beliefs above their own. No one gives a crap about who can visit you in the hospital, or file taxes with you.

Yes, this is part of their frustation because it conflicts with their own personal beliefs. Seeing people legislate what appears to be their belief system then becomes a personal battle for them to fight. That perception is unnecessary now that the marriage license no longer legislates the religious institution in the way it was initially intended to.

I am so tired of the whole, being gay is not a choice. WHAT? Of course it is. Being straight is a choice, being a Morman is a choice. Everything we do in life is about choice. We are born blank slates and OUR perception of beauty and companionship develops based on our experiences. Saying someone is born gay is no better than saying they are born with a disease. Being gay is not a disease anymore than being straight is the cure.

Laws are made to NEGATE the need for universal acceptance, something that anyone who has experienced racism post civil rights movement can easily attest to...

I would disagree with your statement of choice. Twin studies have shown a higher prevalence amongst identical twins both being gay if one is. It also showed non-identical twins as being higher than non-twin siblings but lower than identical twins. The result of the study indicates that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to homosexuality. Please bear in mind, environmental factors do not mean "choice" per se nor does it wave away the apparent influence of genes. We are every bit a product of our environment as we are a product of our genes and things are socially encoded into us in a way that we can't overcome. A person who is terrified of spiders due to a traumatic experience in their youth is no more able to dismiss that fear than a person born with a lisp.

You should consider homosexuality to be a trait in this regard. Not a choice. I'm actually a little surprised that Christian's don't view it as a natural trait as well. Do Christians not consider a sin nature to be a natural conclusion of the fall? As such, they should see people who deal with being naturally one way or the other to be the same as someone being born blind. I've never understood the insistance that homosexuality cannot be inherent.

I would even posit from an evolutionary perspective that we are genetically predisposed to make close friendships with other males to help unify communities that may otherwise have been stuck in war. The men who were able to befriend other males easily were made stronger from it. Homosexuality may merely be this otherwise beneficial trait overriding heterosexual attraction in a maladaptive way (maladaptive purely due to hinderance in imposes on passing along genes, not any moral statement here).

But yes, even inherent traits are generally not forced to be accepted by the individual (businesses, yes). Just as organizations like the KKK are allowed to exist via the first amendment, so should people be allowed to be anti-gay. Society in turn is allowed to not accept them for their bigotry. But that is besides the point of my argument. My argument is to side step it entirely just by changing a name. That's not forcing acceptance so much as disassociation with the religious institution. As the license was designed with legislating the religious institution in mind, I don't think this step away from that is unwarranted.

Griffolion:
My personal thought on the matter is that a state drawing a line in the sand and saying "this is OUR version of marriage, this is how we as a nation defines it, and everyone get's access to it", while probably meeting resistance from religious groups from a perceived "theft of the definition of marriage", would be most beneficial in the long term. Everyone get's the same word, for some it doesn't have to be religious but how it is defined by the state, for others it can take on whatever religious connotation their religion puts on it. But everyone has the same word (which can mean a lot when we subconsciously engage in labelling etc).

As long they persist in using the term, it will be percieved as a component of the religious and ceremonial version. It does not benefit anyone to continue calling it a marriage license and only serves to divide our people along another front. Even people who have nothing against homosexuals stand in defense of their religious tenets. This has got to stop. The marriage license WAS implemented to legislate the religious practice. Think about that. The goal was to prevent pastors and priests from marrying white and black people. Of course, this misuse got struck down but the license remains. If it's going to remain and no longer holds any punch in the religious strata, then it needs to be renamed or people will continue to think it still impacts them.

No one loses here, everyone gains. The religious minded can be free of feeling like their religion is under attack/oppressed by the government. There is a legitimate fear that the association of the two practices may bleed over in future legislation that may actually make pastors/priests perform the religious ceremony or face significant impunity. Additionally, wedding vendors already legally have to perform services for wedding ceremonies (religious ceremonies) they don't agree with. Several have faced fines and lost law suits for failing to do so on the basis of religious convictions. So their fears are not entirely unwarranted. While I don't think changing the name of the license would impact that last one, it gives credence to fears that the entire institution is under attack. This cuts off the two. The homosexual community benefits by getting all the rights they've been fighting for with much less resistance.

Lightknight:
That perception is unnecessary now that the marriage license no longer legislates the religious institution in the way it was initially intended to.

Wait...What? When did this happen? When was it ever about legislating religious institutions?

Zachary Amaranth:

Lightknight:
That perception is unnecessary now that the marriage license no longer legislates the religious institution in the way it was initially intended to.

Wait...What? When did this happen? When was it ever about legislating religious institutions?

In the US, until the mid-19th century (civil war/freedom of the slaves), common law marriages were the norm and entirely valid/recognized. Marriage licenses were implemented to prohibit whites "from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos". By the 1920's, 38 states were using it for those reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#United_States

It was used to prevent churches from marrying those people and was entirely race based to begin with. It's quite a sordid past if you research it and not at all the ancient rite in America we like to think it is. So yeah, it was absolutely implemented to legislate the religious institution of marriage. That it still exists at all is somewhat questionable and there are groups who think it is absolutely not the government's right in any respect. So it is just/right that the license be altered to reflect its new form and function.

Might as well dig into the rest of this one.

Lightknight:
I would disagree with your statement of choice. Twin studies have shown a higher prevalence amongst identical twins both being gay if one is. It also showed non-identical twins as being higher than non-twin siblings but lower than identical twins. The result of the study indicates that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to homosexuality.

It's quite likely there is no genetic link to homosexuality, however. Environmental factors, yes. But there's no documented evidence of homosexuals being more likely to have gay kids, for example. There are very likely other issues at play. Hormone fluccuations in the uterus, for example.

Please bear in mind, environmental factors do not mean "choice" per se nor does it wave away the apparent influence of genes. We are every bit a product of our environment as we are a product of our genes and things are socially encoded into us in a way that we can't overcome. A person who is terrified of spiders due to a traumatic experience in their youth is no more able to dismiss that fear than a person born with a lisp.

I would be careful with that. Phobias, even severe ones, can be cured. To equate the two is to indicate homosexuality can be cured, despite all evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, gays don't become gay because of experiential factors.

You should consider homosexuality to be a trait in this regard. Not a choice. I'm actually a little surprised that Christian's don't view it as a natural trait as well. Do Christians not consider a sin nature to be a natural conclusion of the fall? As such, they should see people who deal with being naturally one way or the other to be the same as someone being born blind. I've never understood the insistance that homosexuality cannot be inherent.

Christians do not have a unifying doctrine. Some even debate the nature of Christ Himself. Some believe we're all sinners and some believe that we choose to sin and some believe that something external makes us sin. There's no unified theory on sin. So even if we take the position that homosexuality is a sin (which a good chunk of Christianity does, without any real support), the nature of that sin and what should be done about it varies from Church to Church (not even from sect to sect).

The insistence that homosexuality is genetic largely comes down to the fact that it's okay to discriminate against choice and action, whereas we consider inborn traits to be a rather monstrous thing to discriminate against. It's a relatively new concept.

What you should probably take away from this above all else is that the poster in question thinks he had to choose to be straight. He (or she) is tacitly admitting to like members of the same sex. This is weirdly a position taken by a lot of Christians, that if not for it being a sin they'd be all over hot guy on guy action (or girl on girl, no need to exclude). When homophobic ministers who get caught will say they gave in to temptation, or they slipped up. That means, on some level, they really want those guys.

I don't think this is the normal state for a heterosexual. I mean, I can't talk experientially. I am a "anything that can consent sexual," so that's right out. However, I know tons of straight people who are involved in alliance programs and march with the gays in pride parades and have no problem with people calling them fags or assuming they're gay, and I've never once come across one of them that said "you know what? I really want some (insert same-sex genitals here) right now." At most, a large swathe of heterosexuals seem to be curious.

This mindset of repression, apart from being unhealthy, is something to consider when talking to people. Both because it's an insight into their own interests and because it's very likely instilled by fear itself. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone who says it is gay, but they certainly have a low opinion of their own sexuality. Because if you can choose to be straight, you can just as easily choose to be gay. Somehow, of the people who have insisted to me they choose to be straight, none have been willing to prove it by duding up.

I would even posit from an evolutionary perspective that we are genetically predisposed to make close friendships with other males to help unify communities that may otherwise have been stuck in war. The men who were able to befriend other males easily were made stronger from it. Homosexuality may merely be this otherwise beneficial trait overriding heterosexual attraction in a maladaptive way (maladaptive purely due to hinderance in imposes on passing along genes, not any moral statement here).

Homosexuality may also be nature's way of providing foster care.

That's not forcing acceptance so much as disassociation with the religious institution.

Since non-religious marriage came first, and even the term itself derives from a contractual relationship (not a spiritual or religious one), shouldn't they be the ones distancing themselves from the institution? Since Marriage has repeatedly been defined by the courts as a right, shouldn't they be the ones distancing themselves from the institution?

But most importantly, since change thing name has never stopped complaints and backlash from religious bodies, isn't the concept of changing the name a spurious conception with no depth or practical change? The religious right in this country gets just as butthurt by civil unions and domestic partnerships.

No one loses here, everyone gains. The religious minded can be free of feeling like their religion is under attack/oppressed by the government.

Except that's not true. Have you looked at the claims of religious persecution in this country?

Well, I suppose it's technically true. They CAN, they just WONT.

There is a legitimate fear that the association of the two practices may bleed over in future legislation that may actually make pastors/priests perform the religious ceremony or face significant impunity.

That's not a "legitimate fear." It's paranoia.

Additionally, wedding vendors already legally have to perform services for wedding ceremonies (religious ceremonies) they don't agree with. Several have faced fines and lost law suits for failing to do so on the basis of religious convictions.

To my knowledge, no such case has actually been on the religious end of things. It's been people trying not to perform their CIVIL duties to CIVIL marriage.

For example:

I live in Vermont. We had civil unions, now we have gay marriage. It's perfectly legal here for a church or religious body not to marry people, but not for a Justice of the Peace to do so. And why shouldn't it be that way? If you don't want to perform the job, don't take it. If you take the job, you perform the job as-is. It's the "Amish Bus Driver" principle. a JP is a civil servant doing a government job of officiating civil marriage.

Where's the problem?

So their fears are not entirely unwarranted.

[citation needed]

Seriously. Evidence plz.

Lightknight:

In the US, until the mid-19th century (civil war/freedom of the slaves), common law marriages were the norm and entirely valid/recognized. Marriage licenses were implemented to prohibit whites "from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos". By the 1920's, 38 states were using it for those reasons.

Except that only tells half the story, so it doesn't really properly address anything.

It was used to prevent churches from marrying those people and was entirely race based to begin with.

Kind of illogical, as religious ceremonies were unnecessary. I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test, but who am I to argue with a two paragraph blurb on the site that locked a page insisting the Lakota Sioux had withdrawn from the US even as the Sioux themselves said it was false?

I'm sure you have more than that to back it up, right?

Edit: Hell, if we're using Wikipedia, there's no problem with marriage as-is.

In some countries - notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain - both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) - the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage ceremony is not recognized as a marriage by government under the law.

As Jacques Clousseau would say, ze problem is sol-ved.

Zachary Amaranth:

Spearmaster:
It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights.

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

What he is wondering now is if the pro-gay marriage crowd will take their victory gracefully or will be sore winners. I think it is a valid point but the discussion is about how he is only doing this for monetary gain and how much of a bigot he is so everyone should boycott everything he does and thus prove his point for him...go team!!!

Love that strawman.

However:

He is still a bigot. Simply saying that the courts have spoken doesn't change that. And there's really no reason to support him. He is likely doing this for financial gain. To be honest, I couldn't care less.

He wants to call gays abominations and pedophiles and all sorts of other nasty things and that's fine. I've never tried to stop him, but nor do I have any intent to support him, especially since he only begrudgingly said "okay, the courts have spoken."

If that's proving his point, then he has a really shitty point.

He may be an intolerant bigot and I support your choice to be intolerant and bigoted to his viewpoint, its your right to hold those views just as its his right to hold his. I guess its not enough to get the laws changed, its a war against free thought now.

How much should someone hate someone else for expressing an opposing viewpoint? Especially concerning rights, which are about the most abstract thing on the planet.

Let me ask you something. Does the fact that you're defending a man who hates people for a fact of nature by asking about hate not cause some sort of dissonance in your mind?

I'm defending all people who hold their own viewpoints on any issue, yours and his, so no, no dissonance. What I don't understand is the need to drive out anyone who holds an idea that's different from your own from either side rather than trying to talk it out. I don't know his history but was he actively involved in boycotting anything involving homosexuals?

I don't think most of the people boycotting him even hate him. I know I don't. Doesn't mean he's not a bigot. He is. And he hates people for something worse than stating an opinion: he hates them for being made different.

I guess he was made different as well then. Raised in an environment that made him this way to the point he cant help it or even born that way.

If he was railing against black people, would you be so quick to defend his hatred by condemning the hatred of others? I suppose so, as rights are the most abstract thing on the planet and therefore slavery is probably okay, MIRITE?

(edited to correct the use of subjective. I don't know how I switched those words, but I blame my fingers).

A slavery straw man, I like it.
That is the problem with rights, the government gets to decide, people within the government with their own viewpoints deciding what someone different than them has the right to do. Rights can be given to homosexuals to get married or rights can be given to slave owners to own people of color as property, its a double edged sword. Freedom is the answer, everyone should be free to do what they want unless it harms another. Government should not be involved in deciding which freedoms people receive or don't receive.

Spearmaster:
A slavery straw man, I like it.

Comparing one rights issue to another, especially when one is attempting to nullify the value of rights is not a strawman, sorry.

Government should not be involved in deciding which freedoms people receive or don't receive.

See, you're just substituting "rights" with "freedoms." And either way, under your grand philosophy, what WOULD stop me from owning slaves?

Lightknight:

theApoc:
Indeed it is culturally based. Which is why I believe you cannot legislate its interpretation. There is no legal reason that I can think of why I as an individual should not be able to partner with anyone I choose from a legal standpoint. THAT kind of support and cooperation, regardless of the reasons for such a partnership will always benefit society.

Right, I'd even consider a non-romantic financial union of sorts. If even businesses can do it, why not people? Though this union would be a little stronger than that with all the visitation rights and such.

Ceremonial marriage, while tied to the process of a legal union, does not actually create that union(an actual license is what truly matters, the ceremony is a formality and a religious official ends up being little more than a notarized witness of the bond).

Exactly. As per my example that we had our best man notarize the document, not the minister.

So, the key to this argument IMO is as you said, separating the legal aspect from the ceremony. So fighting for gay-MARRIAGE to me becomes little more than a pointless quest for acceptance, and THAT is where I find fault in the whole idea of "gay rights". Laws are not meant to force acceptance, they are meant to enforce compliance. And while a religious official CAN marry two people, they are not the only conduit for people to get married, thus a church refusing to marry same sex couples is NOT discriminatory and should not be looked at as such.

What people are upset about, regardless of their acceptance, is the idea that they HAVE to agree with someone else's lifestyle. That they have to accept someone else's beliefs above their own. No one gives a crap about who can visit you in the hospital, or file taxes with you.

Yes, this is part of their frustation because it conflicts with their own personal beliefs. Seeing people legislate what appears to be their belief system then becomes a personal battle for them to fight. That perception is unnecessary now that the marriage license no longer legislates the religious institution in the way it was initially intended to.

I am so tired of the whole, being gay is not a choice. WHAT? Of course it is. Being straight is a choice, being a Morman is a choice. Everything we do in life is about choice. We are born blank slates and OUR perception of beauty and companionship develops based on our experiences. Saying someone is born gay is no better than saying they are born with a disease. Being gay is not a disease anymore than being straight is the cure.

Laws are made to NEGATE the need for universal acceptance, something that anyone who has experienced racism post civil rights movement can easily attest to...

I would disagree with your statement of choice. Twin studies have shown a higher prevalence amongst identical twins both being gay if one is. It also showed non-identical twins as being higher than non-twin siblings but lower than identical twins. The result of the study indicates that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to homosexuality. Please bear in mind, environmental factors do not mean "choice" per se nor does it wave away the apparent influence of genes. We are every bit a product of our environment as we are a product of our genes and things are socially encoded into us in a way that we can't overcome. A person who is terrified of spiders due to a traumatic experience in their youth is no more able to dismiss that fear than a person born with a lisp.

You should consider homosexuality to be a trait in this regard. Not a choice. I'm actually a little surprised that Christian's don't view it as a natural trait as well. Do Christians not consider a sin nature to be a natural conclusion of the fall? As such, they should see people who deal with being naturally one way or the other to be the same as someone being born blind. I've never understood the insistance that homosexuality cannot be inherent.

I would even posit from an evolutionary perspective that we are genetically predisposed to make close friendships with other males to help unify communities that may otherwise have been stuck in war. The men who were able to befriend other males easily were made stronger from it. Homosexuality may merely be this otherwise beneficial trait overriding heterosexual attraction in a maladaptive way (maladaptive purely due to hinderance in imposes on passing along genes, not any moral statement here).

But yes, even inherent traits are generally not forced to be accepted by the individual (businesses, yes). Just as organizations like the KKK are allowed to exist via the first amendment, so should people be allowed to be anti-gay. Society in turn is allowed to not accept them for their bigotry. But that is besides the point of my argument. My argument is to side step it entirely just by changing a name. That's not forcing acceptance so much as disassociation with the religious institution. As the license was designed with legislating the religious institution in mind, I don't think this step away from that is unwarranted.

Griffolion:
My personal thought on the matter is that a state drawing a line in the sand and saying "this is OUR version of marriage, this is how we as a nation defines it, and everyone get's access to it", while probably meeting resistance from religious groups from a perceived "theft of the definition of marriage", would be most beneficial in the long term. Everyone get's the same word, for some it doesn't have to be religious but how it is defined by the state, for others it can take on whatever religious connotation their religion puts on it. But everyone has the same word (which can mean a lot when we subconsciously engage in labelling etc).

As long they persist in using the term, it will be percieved as a component of the religious and ceremonial version. It does not benefit anyone to continue calling it a marriage license and only serves to divide our people along another front. Even people who have nothing against homosexuals stand in defense of their religious tenets. This has got to stop. The marriage license WAS implemented to legislate the religious practice. Think about that. The goal was to prevent pastors and priests from marrying white and black people. Of course, this misuse got struck down but the license remains. If it's going to remain and no longer holds any punch in the religious strata, then it needs to be renamed or people will continue to think it still impacts them.

No one loses here, everyone gains. The religious minded can be free of feeling like their religion is under attack/oppressed by the government. There is a legitimate fear that the association of the two practices may bleed over in future legislation that may actually make pastors/priests perform the religious ceremony or face significant impunity. Additionally, wedding vendors already legally have to perform services for wedding ceremonies (religious ceremonies) they don't agree with. Several have faced fines and lost law suits for failing to do so on the basis of religious convictions. So their fears are not entirely unwarranted. While I don't think changing the name of the license would impact that last one, it gives credence to fears that the entire institution is under attack. This cuts off the two. The homosexual community benefits by getting all the rights they've been fighting for with much less resistance.

Wonderful response, thank you for your insight.

Zachary Amaranth:

Spearmaster:
A slavery straw man, I like it.

Comparing one rights issue to another, especially when one is attempting to nullify the value of rights is not a strawman, sorry.

If that is what you did no it wouldn't be a strawman, but taking my statement on the abstract nature of rights and thus stating that slavery must be ok in my view is.

Government should not be involved in deciding which freedoms people receive or don't receive.

See, you're just substituting "rights" with "freedoms." And either way, under your grand philosophy, what WOULD stop me from owning slaves?

The whole "harming another" thing which you failed to quote...really?

Spearmaster:

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

I suppose the thought of not supporting someone, as already indicated, simply to not give money to someone who hates you IS such a far-flung concept it cannot be conceived, even though it's already been mentioned.

He may be an intolerant bigot and I support your choice to be intolerant and bigoted to his viewpoint, its your right to hold those views just as its his right to hold his. I guess its not enough to get the laws changed, its a war against free thought now.

ahh, false equivalence. Gotta love it. He's a bigot because he's allowing prejudice to inform hate. Remember, this is a guy who accuses gays of pegophilia. I have responded solely based on things he's actually done, such as call a large chunk of my friends pedophiles and threaten to destroy any government that supported them.

The fact that I have no problem with him speaking is tolerance in itself. The fact that he still has a problem with me existing is intolerance in itself. Again, I can't muster the pathos to hate everyone who has a viewpoint I disagree with.

I'm defending all people who hold their own viewpoints on any issue, yours and his, so no, no dissonance.

You're defending someone whose "viewpoints" villify another group and demand legislation to their detriment and equating it with not wanting to financially support his donations to anti-gay groups.

What I don't understand is the need to drive out anyone who holds an idea that's different from your own from either side rather than trying to talk it out.

Who's driving him out? Again, that's a strawman argument. He's free to say what he wants and I'm free to buy what I want. If I don't want to support him fiscally, I don't have to. The same is true for the WBC. I support their right to speak, but I will never write them a check. What is so wrong with that? Am I also "driving out" the WBC? They seem to be thriving.

I don't know his history but was he actively involved in boycotting anything involving homosexuals?

Wait, you don't even know what you're talking about here, and you seek to lecture me? Shouldn't the first thing you do be to familiarise yourself with the subject you're talking about?

Card has fiscally supported and is currently on the board of directors for NOM, which actively opposes gay marriage along with civil unions, adoptions, and other gay rights issues. He's still on there last I knew (he is listed as current), which means he's likely not actually trying to "get along" with anyone.

On any level, however, I find the notion of "tolerate me now that my push to make my intolerance law" to be completely fucking absurd and something any sentient being should be ashamed of.

[quote]I guess he was made different as well then. Raised in an environment that made him this way to the point he cant help it or even born that way.

More false equivalence. Yay.

So when his opinion was popular, he advocated "chang[ing] governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary", and added that if gay marriage were recognized, he would personally "act to destroy [the] government and bring it down". Now that the long arc of history is bending away from him, he suddenly says "I have no quarrel with proponents of gay marriage". I can't help but think of this:
image

Zachary Amaranth:

Spearmaster:

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

I suppose the thought of not supporting someone, as already indicated, simply to not give money to someone who hates you IS such a far-flung concept it cannot be conceived, even though it's already been mentioned.

He may be an intolerant bigot and I support your choice to be intolerant and bigoted to his viewpoint, its your right to hold those views just as its his right to hold his. I guess its not enough to get the laws changed, its a war against free thought now.

ahh, false equivalence. Gotta love it. He's a bigot because he's allowing prejudice to inform hate. Remember, this is a guy who accuses gays of pegophilia. I have responded solely based on things he's actually done, such as call a large chunk of my friends pedophiles and threaten to destroy any government that supported them.

The fact that I have no problem with him speaking is tolerance in itself. The fact that he still has a problem with me existing is intolerance in itself. Again, I can't muster the pathos to hate everyone who has a viewpoint I disagree with.

I'm defending all people who hold their own viewpoints on any issue, yours and his, so no, no dissonance.

You're defending someone whose "viewpoints" villify another group and demand legislation to their detriment and equating it with not wanting to financially support his donations to anti-gay groups.

What I don't understand is the need to drive out anyone who holds an idea that's different from your own from either side rather than trying to talk it out.

Who's driving him out? Again, that's a strawman argument. He's free to say what he wants and I'm free to buy what I want. If I don't want to support him fiscally, I don't have to. The same is true for the WBC. I support their right to speak, but I will never write them a check. What is so wrong with that? Am I also "driving out" the WBC? They seem to be thriving.

I don't know his history but was he actively involved in boycotting anything involving homosexuals?

Wait, you don't even know what you're talking about here, and you seek to lecture me? Shouldn't the first thing you do be to familiarise yourself with the subject you're talking about?

Card has fiscally supported and is currently on the board of directors for NOM, which actively opposes gay marriage along with civil unions, adoptions, and other gay rights issues. He's still on there last I knew (he is listed as current), which means he's likely not actually trying to "get along" with anyone.

On any level, however, I find the notion of "tolerate me now that my push to make my intolerance law" to be completely fucking absurd and something any sentient being should be ashamed of.

[quote]I guess he was made different as well then. Raised in an environment that made him this way to the point he cant help it or even born that way.

More false equivalence. Yay.

Honestly I don't personalize myself with issues so I don't have the blinding passion that most have on the issue, I was merely curious. Saying I support him is a far far stretch so I don't know where that came from, I don't read his books and I don't care about his movie so I guess the boycott thing for me is moot. Based on what you said you should boycott his works. Ive never said you shouldn't boycott his works. I simply asked why at this point since he lacks any ability to further his agenda and you answered that.

You say false equivalence but on what authority? Perhaps he is a victim of his environment. Perhaps if he was shown tolerance for his actions his bigotry would die off and be replaced with true acceptance rather than whipping him and his friends into another anti-gay shitstorm. My over all question was when is the fighting back and forth going to stop and who is gonna be the bigger man? I guess time will tell.

Zachary Amaranth:
It's quite likely there is no genetic link to homosexuality, however. Environmental factors, yes. But there's no documented evidence of homosexuals being more likely to have gay kids, for example. There are very likely other issues at play. Hormone fluccuations in the uterus, for example.

Twin studies are generally more accurate indicators of biological factors than parent-child studies do to a significantly higher possibility of additional influences that are impossible to account for. Particularly when they correlate positively with a result. Negative biological results (studies that result in no discernable correlation) are less valid only because of the potential influence of chromosomal abnormalities (deletions, duplications, inversions of segments of genetic code) that still point to biological factors without necessarily being genetically passed down.

The twin studies on homosexuality are particularly confirming of at least some biological factors contributing due to the difference in results between identical twins and fraternal (non-identical twins that share no more common DNA than non-twin siblings) twins with regard to non-twin siblings which have the lowest occurence. This rules out the womb environment as the only factor though does not dismiss it as a contributing factor. That non-identical twins also display a higher rate of mutual occurance of homosexuality if one is homosexual then indicates one or two things: That there are additional factors in the womb and/or that being the same age relates to going through sexual development around the same time as well as being more likely to share the same food brands and such. That the occurance isn't 100% or even 50% (I believe the last study was around 24% for identical twins) indicates additional environmental factors at play, but that it's higher than the others in identical twins certainly seems to point to environmental conditions.

Wall of text below, spoilered for the sake of everyone's sanity, click to view:

Spearmaster:

Zachary Amaranth:

Spearmaster:
It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights.

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

I am conflicted on the matter. On the one hand, they have every right to boycott and not give money to someone they don't like. I also believe that people who hold particularly antisocial views (e.g. KKK) do deserve some social repercussions. But on the other hand, this is quite a dangerous tool to be wielding against a guy who believes the same thing a non-trivial number of other Americans believe. And to use it merely to shut him up when he's not actually doing anything himself is or feels wrong.

In any event, this may just have the streizand effect like the boycott of chic fil a caused. I should read his essay though. Perhaps it includes components that I would equate as hate speech, something I'm generally fine with dashing underfoot. But from what I've read, he just believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think boycotting a movie about a book he wrote thirty years ago that includes no reference to the material is going to do anything about anything. Just an attempt to censor. Which is interesting.

theApoc:
Wonderful response, thank you for your insight.

Thank you, and thank you for your contribution as well.

Spearmaster:

If that is what you did no it wouldn't be a strawman

Since it is, I'm glad you agree it's not a strawman. Apology accepted.

Now, the question stands. Is slavery okay? After all, if rights are abstract....

The whole "harming another" thing which you failed to quote...really?

Of course, "harm" is still a subjective terms. I'm depriving them of rights, but that's an abstract concept.

...Yeah, you might have walked into that one.

Spearmaster:

Honestly I don't personalize myself with issues so I don't have the blinding passion that most have on the issue, I was merely curious.

You jumped in

Saying I support him is a far far stretch so I don't know where that came from

I just Control_Fed that post and didn't see where I said that you supported him in any meaningful sense. I spoke of my right not to support him, which doesn't impact you. I spoke of his support for NOM. I spoke of his support and my support, but I don't remember and can't find mention of your support. As a result, I can't help but wonder if you are even reading what I write. This smacks of dishonesty. And there's more on that to come.

Ive never said you shouldn't boycott his works.

I turned the question around. I asked why I should support him, and why lack of support for him equated to the harsher things you're accusing people of when all they're doing is refusing to support someone. And by posing those statements as though they are germane to the issue at hand, you ARE equating them.

Perhaps he is a victim of his environment.

So what you're saying is that you can't prove your affirmative claim, but it's not false to equate his state with one where people actually are "born that way."

Gotcha.

Perhaps if he was shown tolerance for his actions his bigotry would die off and be replaced with true acceptance rather than whipping him and his friends into another anti-gay shitstorm.

Again, if you took a few minutes to know what you were talking about, you'd know he's been doing this without a shitstorm for most of my life, and statistically all of yours. It was only when he threatened to topple the government and so on that he really started to draw ire. Showing tolerance to Card worked so well.

I know you're not as "invested," but if you're going to argue, why not know what you're arguing about?

My over all question was when is the fighting back and forth going to stop and who is gonna be the bigger man?

Yes, and let's equate someone trying to treat people as second-class citizens and deprive them of that which as been determined to be a right to people not buying a dude's book for wanting to destroy them and any government that supports them. Perfectly logical.

...I really don't think any other book in the series, apart from Ender's Game, is actually filmable. Speaker for the Dead is great on paper, but on film it would probably be a ridiculous-looking disaster, and from then on the mindfuck becomes too great for anyone apart from perhaps Kubrick to be able to unfuck it enough for it to be comprehensible within a 2-hour time frame. So, basically, that's his one film. I don't think boycotting it would do that much damage to him.

Also, most of the writers that you admire are fucked up monsters in one way or another. Almost no great writer is a normal, pleasant person with "healthy" beliefs and attitude. Separating them from their work is a necessity, if you actually want to read anything good. Still, I do understand that when someone is very active and vocal about something important, and you disagree, you may find it hard to give them any more of your money. That doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me, is that he addressed the calls for a boycott, and in such a passive-aggressive way. I honestly did not expect that. I would have expected him to shrug it off as a predictable consequence of the fact that he has fought for his beliefs against what he considers to be a horde of degenerates out to turn the world into an immoral shithole that he'd rather not have his children live in. But this miserable little whimper of his, this passive-aggressive plea for tolerance, is not something I expected from someone with his tenacity.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Quick question.

Would you consider me a racist if I gave a significant percentage of my earnings to the Ku Klux Klan, even if that work didn't attack the African-American community in any way?

It would depend on why you gave them money, and what you hoped to do with it. Also, just fyi, but unless you are giving money to some dead former confederates, you should realize that the KKK has long since expanded their attention to include not only Black Americans, but other groups as well and that you could summarize how they view themselves and the groups they hate/terrorize with this cartoon.

Case in point, apparently the KKK has protested the WBC....so if you gave them money because of their counter protest to the WBC I might call you misguided and tell you that there are better ways to support people who disprove of the WBC but I don't know if I would call you racist based solely on that action alone.

Zachary Amaranth:

Spearmaster:

If that is what you did no it wouldn't be a strawman

Since it is, I'm glad you agree it's not a strawman. Apology accepted.

Now, the question stands. Is slavery okay? After all, if rights are abstract....

Slavery again? If you want an apology then tell me how stating rights are abstract is also stating that slavery is probably ok. Slavery being ok or not is a morality issue, rights are a legal issue, you creating a morality issue was your strawman and apparently still is.

Your asking a morality question that has nothing to do with "rights" being abstract. Is slavery ok? no its not ok. What does that have to do with rights being abstract? A government can give people the "right" to own another is that ok? A government can give people the "right" to do anything immoral.

The whole "harming another" thing which you failed to quote...really?

Of course, "harm" is still a subjective terms. I'm depriving them of rights, but that's an abstract concept.

...Yeah, you might have walked into that one.

Walked into what? Your ignorance on the subject? Your depriving them of basic human freedom, which I stated all people should have unless it harms another, if you enslave them you are harming their freedom are you not? Rights can be created to let anyone do anything so if the government gives you the "right" to have slaves you can. Again this is a morality question. Not a legal "rights" question.

So if rights are not abstract where do they come from? and what determines who gets what rights?

Lightknight:

Spearmaster:

Zachary Amaranth:

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

I am conflicted on the matter. On the one hand, they have every right to boycott and not give money to someone they don't like. I also believe that people who hold particularly antisocial views (e.g. KKK) do deserve some social repercussions. But on the other hand, this is quite a dangerous tool to be wielding against a guy who believes the same thing a non-trivial number of other Americans believe. And to use it merely to shut him up when he's not actually doing anything himself is or feels wrong.

In any event, this may just have the streizand effect like the boycott of chic fil a caused. I should read his essay though. Perhaps it includes components that I would equate as hate speech, something I'm generally fine with dashing underfoot. But from what I've read, he just believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think boycotting a movie about a book he wrote thirty years ago that includes no reference to the material is going to do anything about anything. Just an attempt to censor. Which is interesting.

When it involves censoring someones views and thoughts it walks a fine line with me, at what point is it doing more harm than good? and is it just a mob out policing thought?

I view choosing not to support someone and trying to rally/guilt everyone into a boycott two completely different things, hell I was called a bigot because I did not want to join the chick-fil-a boycott.

Its the absolutist's with us or against us ideal that I distaste the most.

May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Hahaha, you guys are so funny with those "problems" of some deviant minority being "oppressed". I love those screams of people being "intolerant", "homophobic" - sooo sweet to watch this new wave of witch hunt. OK, who will be next? You guys had communists, had homophobes, now... Let's see... Next will be apple juice drinkers who violate the rights of fruits to be equal!

Terramax:
May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Gay marriages in the US aren't even allowed in most states.

What the court actually overturned was the ability of the federal government to not recognize a marriage that was legal in a state. Before this, even though gay marriage was legal in, for example, Iowa, a married couple in Iowa couldn't get their federal benefits because the federal government said "Go To Hell". This was, rightly, ruled as unconstitutional.

However, under half of the states actually allow gay marriage right now. A few allow a less benefit-filled civil union with the benefits of common-law marriage.

And no, no religious institution is required to marry people if it's against their beliefs. So only churches that believe in gay marriage (which exist, but are a pretty slim minority) are ones currently performing gay marriages, and the law didn't change that.

Terramax:
May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Gay marriages as far as the ceremony are allowed anywhere that it would be legal for anyone else to have a marriage. It's the marriage license that varies from state to state.

The ambiguity of the term has caused the confusion over your question.

Friv:

Terramax:
May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Gay marriages in the US aren't even allowed in most states.

What the court actually overturned was the ability of the federal government to not recognize a marriage that was legal in a state. Before this, even though gay marriage was legal in, for example, Iowa, a married couple in Iowa couldn't get their federal benefits because the federal government said "Go To Hell". This was, rightly, ruled as unconstitutional.

However, under half of the states actually allow gay marriage right now. A few allow a less benefit-filled civil union with the benefits of common-law marriage.

And no, no religious institution is required to marry people if it's against their beliefs. So only churches that believe in gay marriage (which exist, but are a pretty slim minority) are ones currently performing gay marriages, and the law didn't change that.

Ah, ok. Many thanks for clarifying.

Flatfrog:

Legion:

It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

With my Devil's Advocate hat on again, it might be said that homophobes believe gay people *do* 'bad things' - and they would be in the moral majority in most places and centuries too. So in that respect I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for him to ask us to tolerate his views. Which I do. I just don't want to give him any money to spend on propagating them.

I don't see how that changes the fact that his views are harmful and irrational. Homosexuality is not "bad" as evidenced by the fact that there are no rational arguments to support that it is, regardless of all the people who have motivation to make such. The fact that he THINKS he's right is irrelevant, of course he does.

Spearmaster:

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Lightknight:

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

Spearmaster:

When it involves censoring someones views and thoughts it walks a fine line with me, at what point is it doing more harm than good? and is it just a mob out policing thought?

I don't see why this needs to be explained, but boycotts do not equate to censorship.

Censorship is demanding the movie not be shown.
Censorship is refusing to allow the movie to be published or preventing people from seeing the movie.
Thought crime would be demanding he be arrested for his views.

Spearmaster:

I view choosing not to support someone and trying to rally/guilt everyone into a boycott two completely different things, hell I was called a bigot because I did not want to join the chick-fil-a boycott.

Its the absolutist's with us or against us ideal that I distaste the most.

You're not a bigot, but you're supporting bigotry inadvertently.

I wouldn't call a person bigot for not wanting to join the boycott, but I would tell them that they are choosing to ignore the feelings of those who are being oppressed, you don't need to feel guilty about that. But that's how it is.

Spearmaster:

You say false equivalence but on what authority? Perhaps he is a victim of his environment.
Perhaps if he was shown tolerance for his actions his bigotry would die off and be replaced with true acceptance rather than whipping him and his friends into another anti-gay shitstorm.

He has been shown tolerance.....for the last three decades, his bigotry still hasn't died down.

Spearmaster:

My over all question was when is the fighting back and forth going to stop and who is gonna be the bigger man? I guess time will tell.

There is no "bigger man" in this case. There's Man One trying to take away rights from Man Two. Do you think Man Two and his friends should just sit by?

It's not an issue with middle ground

"A wants gays to have rights, B doesn't want gays to have rights. Therefore we should give give gays one and a half rights."

Lovely Mixture:
I don't see why this needs to be explained, but boycotts do not equate to censorship.

Didn't say that boycotts did. Said the intention of it was to censor Card himself from expressing his views. Also, as a shot across the bow of anyone else with financial endeavors who holds such opinions.

The entire point is that this boycott isn't to stop something from happen or to get something to change. This is to punish someone for his beliefs despite him not actively doing anything about it in the movie or elsewhere.

We're not saying (or I hope the others here aren't) that they're censoring the movie by boycotting it. Merely that they're trying to punish him by doing so.

Lightknight:
The entire point is that this boycott isn't to stop something from happen or to get something to change. This is to punish someone for his beliefs despite him not actively doing anything about it in the movie or elsewhere.

I'm afraid that it is you who has missed the entire point.

He has actively done something about his beliefs. Repeatedly. Consistently. He's written essays about why anyone supporting gay marriage is contributing to the downfall of civilization, and he's spent considerable money supporting groups that try to buy legislation to force people with differing opinions to shut up and sit down.

Would you pay money to someone who was going to immediately spend that money to try and take away your rights?

Lightknight:
Didn't say that boycotts did. Said the intention of it was to censor Card himself from expressing his views. Also, as a shot across the bow of anyone else with financial endeavors who holds such opinions.

But that's also not the case. Because it doesn't do that either. Card can say his views, Bigots can say their views. The boycott does not prevent them from doing either, it's a message that says "we do not support your views."

Card and the bigots can rant and do whatever the fuck they want. But me and the boycotters aren't giving them money.

I've had to say this at least three times in the thread.

Lightknight:

The entire point is that this boycott isn't to stop something from happen or to get something to change. This is to punish someone for his beliefs despite him not actively doing anything about it in the movie or elsewhere.

He is doing it elsewhere, He is STILL a member of the NOM, giving money to him is giving money to NOM. The boycott is a matter of principle, integrity, and refusal to support such organizations.

Lightknight:

We're not saying (or I hope the others here aren't) that they're censoring the movie by boycotting it. Merely that they're trying to punish him by doing so.

Yes. That's what boycotts are, they are punishment. They are the mildest form of punishment, they are a form of punishment that is made possible by the freedom to spend your money how you want to. Passive resistance.

You make it sound as if boycotts steal money from people. They don't. Every person chooses what to do with their money.

tl;dr there is no censorship or intention of censorship. Not supporting someone you are against is punishment, but you make that sound as if it's wrong to do.

I think if Card had put his politics into his work, they'd have more of a case. He hasn't done that, so while even I disagree with some of his personal views, I'd still go and see an awesome looking film based an an awesome book. On top of that, Card is entitled to make a living so he can eat and pay bills, like the rest of us.

I understand Lions Gates concerns, but despite this noise, I think Enders Game will do just fine for a few reasons. The first is that we don't get as much sci-fi these days as we used to get years ago, which makes fans more hungry for something cool, the most recent being Man of Steel and Pacific Rim. The second is that Enders Game has a young cast, which will tap into the young teen/adult crowd. And third its got Harrison Ford plus aliens in it. Don't see how it can fail.

As for the LGBT community, while I feel your pain, in a war for your agenda and equality, you have to pick your battles carefully. Boycotting this film won't help, when efforts could be focused on something more constructive.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here