A lot of posters on both sides seem to have very skewed and fixed opinions on things (for the record, I’m probably no better, but there ya go). Gay rights, as an example are bullshit. There are no `gay rights’. Period. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

You have *human* rights, whether you happen to be gay, straight, confused, asexual, or trisexual. Or any other flavor. And that’s where the confusion or basic flaw of reasoning comes in, or is exhibited. What *are* `human’ rights? Put simply: you get born, you live as best you can, you die. Those are your basic human rights. Everything else is a *societal* construct, based on the society in which you live. Jews are human, just like all of us, and their (as we consider them) human `rights’ went bye-bye real fast in a certain area of Europe about sixty years ago. No god or irresistible cosmic force stepped in and enforced their `inalienable rights’. Other societies who (for reasons of their own, some of which may have involved sympathy for the Jewish situation) opposed that particular country’s version of society stepped in and eventually won.

So really, it’s not a human rights thing…it’s a societal thing. And for better or worse, like it or not, in this society we have established ways and means of altering society. You may not like it, you may not agree, you may think it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Marriage and other personal interactions are controlled by society; no particular member of that society has an “I Win” button that is not authorized by society. To be a real bastard about it: *why* does anyone have to indulge your flavor of odd? Whatever it may be? If the best you can do is “Uh…because it’s not fair!” is not a winning answer. A winning answer is something Mother Nature or the cold uncaring universe would acknowledge. Something to prove *your* belief is more correct than any other person’s.

Since that’s a low-odds-for-success method, we *all* need to realize the only beliefs we can influence or change are our own. If someone doesn’t approve of gays, that’s their damage. If someone approves of gays, that’s their damage. Agree to disagree, realize none of us are the holder of Universal Truth & Knowledge, and are all basically making this shit up as we go in hopes of making our lives a little better for as long as they last.

And, really…gay rights guys ‘n’ gals? Your knickers are all knotted over one sci-fi author’s opinion. OSC wasn’t out beating the crap out of gays or killing them or doing anything but expressing his beliefs…which you might recognize as another oft-misunderstood thing…you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association? Those things? Yeah, *none* of them give *you* the `right’ to not be offended, none of them say you have to agree.

So…when exactly are you gay rights activists taking on Islam and its extremists? Just curious, since this is such a huge crisis that some people don’t agree with gay marriage or what-have-you. When’s the gay-rights march on the local mosque happening? Because just saying, I’m thinking saying gays shouldn’t marry or whatever the discord is, is a *little* less important than folks tossing gays off cliffs and whacking their heads off with machetes. Not being gay myself, I may be a little skewed, but as a hetero-normative whatever-the-hell I am, I’m *pretty* sure I’d be more worried about getting my head chopped off than whether I could marry my girlfriend. “OSC is the anti-gay Antichrist, we’re just not gonna talk about those Muslim folks who, you know, want to *kill* us. Because, you know, they have freedom of religion…and want to kill us. So…yeah, that OSC is a real *dick*…and isn’t likely to, you know, personally *kill* us!”

My personal opinion on gays and what-have-you? Who gives a crap? Who Josh sleeps with has zero effect on my life or reality. My imagined interaction with Josh, at his most fancy bastard:

Josh: “I’m here and I’m queer! I am as gay as a…very gay man!”
Me: Okay, sure. I’m not. Wanna grab a coffee and talk about Borderlands 3? Like when it’s being developed?

As for gay marriage…if a particular law passes, it passes; doesn’t involve me because I’m not gay. The more laws that pass, the easier it gets…society is changing. That’s how the system works. Societal rights evolve…but that doesn’t mean it’s always going to be positive.

Change the laws, change society…but be aware of the long-term effects and the rules of unintended consequences. If you can silence one segment of society…another can silence *you*. Because I can guarantee you only a *very* few sick & twisted individuals would do so while `knowing’ it was wrong.

And that’s enough ranting. You do you. That’s my motto.

Nobody is assuming Card views members of a certain minority group as sub-human–that part was demonstrated. You may have noticed, it's actually the topic here.
Opposing human rights isn't a neutral position that decent people can have–it is beyond the pale.

The topic of the conversation is literally persecution.
The persecution side is, in fact, more guilty of persecution than the anti-persecution side.

Card's actions don't make him evil–they PROVE that he is. That isn't erased because he once saw a puppy without kicking it.

And how come I got to make peace with the one trying to harm me, which presumably means I have to let him hurt me? Oh, and other people. Lots of other innocent people, including children. I think I'd have to sacrifice my conscience to stand by and say nothing to THAT…
But I got off topic there a bit. How come I have to make peace with him? He's the one that did the attacking…

And hate speech isn't criminal.

Also, what you call "labeling" I call "language".
Try writing a post without using any labels–in other words, well, WORDS. You just call them "labels" when a negative one is used on something you want to support… but y'know, claiming the word magically doesn't apply doesn't actually change that the thing was negative to begin with–which is the reason the "label" sounds negative at all.

How come he can dismiss an entire minority group–the good, the bad, and the mostly innocent bystanders–and that's okay… but dismissing him as an individual based on something OBJECTIVELY EVIL that he has ACTUALLY DONE is bad?

I mean, even if the "both sides" bull that your ilk like to pull made any sense, you'd still be laughably hypocritical there.
Seriously, if you lie to make yourself look better, laughably hypocritical is still the BEST you can get.

You're not supposed to be indifferent to minority groups being oppressed in law.

And cut out the "both sides" thing; if one side is a harmed minority group and the other side is those who would harm them, they're not opposing "teams".
But don't worry. They definitely make fools of themselves.

"…people who have done nothing more than disagree with you."
Even if you weren't outright lying, you'd still be lying by omission.
See, it's not that they disagree with me, it's that they think I'm subhuman, inherently inferior to themselves, less deserving of love and respect, and should be treated as such under law.
That's more than "disagreeing" with me. Hell, I don't have to disagree at all for it to be more than that.
Actually, if I DON'T disagree, that would be evidence of how they've harmed me.
Buuuut… you were also lying outright. We're talking about people who actively try–and succeed–to inflict harm.

"I'm just expressing a basic opinion in the most non-confrontational way I know how."
Oh gosh, were you being *non-confrontational*? Gosh, I didn't notice!
Well, since you were being *polite*, that's clearly what's most important.
…Why are there so many bigots who think that being polite is more relevant than the substance of what they're actually saying, anyway? Bonus points: They're never as polite as they claim.

And you do know that "marriage" and "union" are synonyms, yes? They mean the same thing, and we already have civil marriages.

You actually want to impose your religious beliefs on others, which would be exactly what the separation of church and state means you can't do.

The state needs to treat all citizens equally.
Now, all religions SHOULD do that as well, but that's another matter.

Also, you're literally here to tell people how to live their lives.
Except with different rules for you and me. I shouldn't get married–shouldn't even be ALLOWED–but you can. You don't get to claim that people asking not to be hurt are somehow the ones trying to control or restrict others.

See, you're the one doing the attacking. You have thoroughly explained that you are not a friend.
And he certainly is above you. I mean, you literally just described not hating the people you want him to hate as hating you. Your religion doesn't have the false witness thing? Well, I guess it didn't have the love your neighbor thing or the whatsoever you do to the least of these thing or anything like that, either.

Yeah, it's not that his "opinion" is the opposite of my own that makes him a bigot, it's the fact that his "opinion" is that members of a certain minority group are inherently inferior to himself and need to be treated as such.
Y'know, the meaning of the word?

He could go on having different opinions than me about the best flavor of ice cream without demonstrating that he's a bigot. It has nothing to do with how different from me he is, and everything to do with his actual substance.

Also, you contradicted yourself. When you stated that you are opposed to equal rights for all persons, you clearly proved that you are, in fact, a bigot.
But that aside, you then claimed that your position is that the government has no right to limit marriage–you realize this is the opposite position, yes?
And it's actually quite an important point–you can be an evil gay-hating bigot and still stand for equal rights on this issue for any number of reasons. Such as supporting the Freedom of Religion (lots of the super-religious anti-gay bigots who love screaming those words ought to pay more attention to what they mean; if they think it means that the highest-powered religious group can enforce their beliefs in law [curiously enough, that's exactly what it FORBIDS], they should probably watch out for their own population percentage dwindling…).

You're LITERALLY stating that NOT hating a minority group makes me a bigot. Being the very definition of not being a bigot makes me a bigot. You've attempted to twist the meaning of "bigot" to cover bigots, but you've made a super-obvious error… you didn't explain how not-hating is somehow hate to fit your twisted version.
Maaaaybe you're using the language wrong.

Oh, and reacting to somebody's actual behavior is the opposite of prejudice. Like, that's what you're supposed to do and prejudice means that's not what you're doing. It's the word for when you're not doing that.
That's what prejudice is.
So, you definitely don't get to call that prejudice.

And the definition you've quoted does include a few words to demonstrate what is meant by "group"; hate groups don't count. They fall on the other side of this particular definition.

No part of it fits.

"We must all bow and obey."
Did you know that Card tries to restrict the rights of others and his opponents are literally people who don't do that/

"Grow up and practice some of that acceptance stuff you preach."
Ah yes. The "stop being bigoted against bigotry" thing. You know that's really dumb, right?
See, your argument is that if I think hurting people because they're part of the wrong minority group is bad, than I also have to tolerate folks who hurt people because they're part of the wrong minority group.
If your definition of "acceptance" means I need to join a hate group to show solidarity with the poor oppressed hate group, maybe you need to realize that using words to mean literally the opposite of their actual meanings makes you dishonest.

"Maybe he advocates against you, and you advocate against him, whose the saint now, both hands are dirty."
Problem: That second part is a lie so extraordinary I'm not sure why you bothered telling it. Nobody did anything to him.

"The man is entitled to his own opinion…"
How come evil bigots are entitled to the opinion that I'm inherently inferior to themselves and should be treated as such–and are entitled to run hate groups with the sole goal of doing me harm–but I'm not entitled to the opinion that I shouldn't have to perpetually endure that?

Why do you hate the freedom of speech?

Everything you say is utter bullshit, but it's also all so very extraordinarily hypocritical.

I realize this post is ancient, but… I can't let this one pass without comment because everything about it is just so fundamentally horrific in every way.

It's not a show, it's a book that was made into a movie. And his views ARE his business and, as a public figure, the business of anyone that decides to support/not support his creative endeavors. Free speech allows him the right to say what ever hateful thing he likes, but not to be free from the consequences of his actions. Card uses his money to support discriminatory legislation and buying his books or seeing his movie gives him more money. If the informed consumer wants to limit his ability to fund hatred, depriving him of more money (and encouraging like minded consumers to do the same) is an effective means of fighting back.

What phobic things he does in the privacy of this own home, or through the right of free speech, that doesn't resent actual hate inciting…is his business.

Some of the commentary and some of Joel's amazement at the civility of the commentary makes me think that maybe, just maybe, we as a society need to take a closer look at how we see other people.

A lot of times I see people from differing viewpoints whether it be on gay/marriage rights, guns, abortion, whatever, automatically classifying those on the opposite side of the debate as horrible people.

Well, maybe that person who doesn't believe in abortion helps little old ladies across the street, hits every single red cross blood drive, donates bone marrow to kids with leukemia and rescues starving puppies.

Or maybe that anti-gun person volunteers at the nursing home reading to blind, lonely old people, goes to national and state parks for the weekend not to camp but to work at maintaining trails and cleaning up trash in the backcountry, gives money to the Boy and Girl Scouts and supports FFA and 4H.

One choice or stance that disagrees with your own does not instantly transform another person into a puppy kicking axe murderer, and yet so often I see surprise when that fact is demonstrated.

Go see the movie, don't go see the movie, it's your choice, and if you decide to go despite your opinion of Card, then fine. If you decide to go even though you think it's not a very "Good person" thing to do, well, own that, and do some self assessment about your beliefs.

If you decide to go because it looks to be a nifty high budget sci-fi film and you like those, and could care less about any of the politics, awesome.

And if you decide not to go because you think Card is awful and you refuse to give him your money, again, awesome.

Hurray for a free society. Now if we can just learn to be a little bit less blind in our disagreements….

First time commenter by the way, just wanted to throw my .02 into something relatively meaningful.

I've read his books for years, personally I like them even when he paints himself into a damn corner.

I don't care about homosexuality in the same way I don't care about sports or politicians. For years people didn't care about geekdom except when they realized they could goldmine the hell out of it. Geekdom is my thing…people at work don't care about it..they care about whether I show up and do the work.

America really is getting to the point where if your opinion differs from the next person, it's like you're a terrible person. I don't care about homosexuality, it's not for me, I prefer and like women far too much to ever stop or even go bisexual. I'm straight and proud of it. Don't hate and bully me into accepting something that isn't for me

As to what I think about this, Ender's Game is one of the greatest critically acclaimed scifi novels ever written, and this comic is based off of how awesome great sci fi is I.E. Firefly, Doctor Who, etc. Anybody who wants to see an unbiased yet great work of Sci Fi ought to go see the movie, because the movie has nothing to do with Card's personal beliefs, and it's not like he's waiting on this movie to fill up his piggy bank for more anti gay hatred.

I'd also like to reiterate from what I said in a previous comment, it's one man's opinion, you have yours, and while you scream for equality and a respect of your views, respect someone else's. Must they be a bigot simply because their opinion is opposite your own? I invite anyone to think, feel, and have an opinion as they wish on homosexuality, but to also just practice a little less abject hatred for others. Go see the movie for what the movie is, not for what Card's political opinion on one subject is.

He has long been my favorite author, every book I have read by the man has been good, I have never gotten any anti-gay sentiment from any of his works, or really any bad messages to speak of.

It has become clear that the man has several core beliefs that differ from mine, likely due to his very strong Mormon religious background. I stand fully by his right to have these opinions, as that is the very foundation of our society. If people were crucified for having different beliefs, there wouldn't even be a gay movement. He has not done anything illegal or even amoral really. I have read (past the one or two lines quoted all over) the full context of his arguments, and while I disagree with them, I respect that his view does have more depth than most.

The very idea that so many people who actively preach for tolerance and equality would so thoroughly vilify the man boggles me. There are so many more vile and uneducated anti-gay proponents, yet I read more crap against Card then Westboro, its insane.

So you can follow the herd and pretend boycotting the movie will somehow make a man change his religion for you, or you can just enjoy an adaption of an amazing story and get over your self-righteous crap. I'll be in the latter camp.