Ender's Game

(338 votes, average 4.57 out of 5)
Facebook Share

Bumper art by Andrew Dickman

Nostalgia Chick on Twitter and Facebook

Doug's Official Facebook Page
Comments (543)
  • The_Masked_Donut
    avatar
    Well, here's hoping the comments here pan out better. May Santa Christ have mercy on this thread.

    Also, I'm sure Hitler ate a chicken sandwich at some point, so I think most of us who enjoy a good sandwhich are pretty screwed.
  • TheIrrehensibleTJ
    avatar
    Actually... I can't believe I'm doing this, but... Hitler was a stanch Vegan, so he probably DIDN'T actually eat a chicken sandwich at some point. (:
  • ManicWolf
    avatar
    Er, Hitler may or may not have been a vegetarian (there are conflicting reports, but his personal chef claimed that he had cooked meat for Hitler, including pigeon meat, and there's been lots of debate on the matter), but he most certainly was not a vegan (someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including eggs and dairy), you're the first person I've seen claim that he was.
  • Plotspider  - This argument
    avatar
    This argument is proving Lindsey's point about Godwin's law. I don't give a crap if Hitler rolled his poop into balls and ate crayons.
  • ladydiskette
    avatar
    I didn't think there was any meat on a pigeon (except for the breast) to make a hearty meal out of it.
  • JetstreamGW
    avatar
    You just need a dozen or so. Same as Squirrels, or so my Boy Scout friends tell me.
  • Axel Osbourne
    avatar
    So then Vegans are Nazis? I KNEW IT! It's time to shut these fascist brockley eating bastards DOWN! AMERICA BABY, land of the free HOME OF THE WOPPER! (NOTE: Vegans, I'm kidding, it a joke. Calm down.)
  • whitechickbad
    avatar
    Are you using the word "bugger" as a derogatory slur for homosexuals? I was so confused; I thought you were referring to the Formics for a minute. I feel rather foolish, but since I have already expelled more energy on your comment than I wanted to (thanks to my very stupidly confusing a real-world offensive epithet for a fictional one) I might as well go all out, right?
    Feel free NOT to elaborate on how Nostalgia Chick is narrow-minded because she righly shows contempt for narrow-minded bigotry. In fact, feel free NOT to continue to perpetuate that narrow-minded bigotry on a harmless well-intentioned website.
    Also, if you enjoy redundantly explaining to others what they obviously already know about authorial intent, that's fine, I like doing that too, but just a small tip for any theses you may write in the future: People don't generally take your interpretations as seriously (whether or not they're accurate) when you follow them up with complaints about the injustice of non-homophobes not agreeing with you.
    I mean, I have felt a lot of self-contempt b/c I visit this site regularly instead of creating something myself, but at least I'm not creating hateful diatribes. I may be contributing nothing, but you are negative contributing.
    Also, I really need to stop reading the comment sections here. It's a waste of my time and it's too much trouble to work myself up into righteous but impotent indignation.
    In the end I know it's a waste b/c bigots won't be reasoned with. More eloquent and persuasive people than I have tried and failed, and yet I keep persisting, don't I? I must be a masochist. Sigh.
  • Ohsha  - Imbalance
    You can't really evaluate Ender's Game without considering the spoiler (which only an idiot would be surprised by. Come on, you see there aren't many pages left; you've to figure it out.).

    You liked Xenocide? That's the book which got me to stop reading with it's, "how did the universe get created? Someone in a dimension where your thoughts create things thought of it" which just adds an intermediate step rather than solving the problem of something coming from nothing. It's the same argument you get to dodge questions of abiogensis when people say life on Earth evolved from alien life from somewhere else. But it fits with his Mormon belief. We all ascend into higher heavens, becoming Gods of our own universes, and our creations can ascend, ad inifinatum.

    Did you get an incestuous vibe between him and his sister (violet? It's been awhile...) b/c I did. The scenes where they're in the boat on the lake on earth they seem too close and later he's queerly jealous of her husband.

    LotR was Tolkien being an environmentalist and demonizing industrialization. Remember, the evil orcs, degenerated elves who've never seen the trees of light, build machines. Saruman industrializes the Shire, polluting and ruining it, to spite the hobbits. The elves, who're the best-at-everything, are really close to nature. The goddess of good in the setting who made the trees of light is the goddess of nature. The dwarves are handicapped b/c the forge-god made them in secret and they came to life before they could be blessed by the nature godess so they've no love of nature. A medieval setting where gunpowder's anachronistically scarce-to-nonexistant pleased Tolkien b/c he hugged trees.

    I'm surprised to hear Lindsay address how Hitler's overhyped. I agree. As for that guy's quote, I call bullshit. He gives no specific examples (atleast in that quote) about what in Ender's life matches obscure Hitler trivia.

    Being against calling buggers married isn't extremist, it's the norm. Get out of your marxist bubble and consider how a belief shared by China, India, and the muslim world constitutes a belief held by most of mankind.

    The "dumb shit" Lindsay quotes is all factually correct. If you dispute it you're either lying, ignorant, misinformed, or have some alternate interpretation of these facts I'd be interested in hearing.

    Again, following Marxist critical theory, you attack OSC's premises without offering a counter-premise. What should he do instead of rationally explaining why he's against the state falsely identifying pairs of buggers as married? Be quiet? Change his mind without convincing argument? Y'all cultishly stick to your own kind out of confirmation bias to such a degree the opinion of the common man shocks you.
  • Ohsha
    You fanatical zealots refuse to even buy a product from someone who doesn't follow your religion and would hypocritically condemn anyone of a different cult who does the same.

    Buggers being called "married" by the state is an artificially popular issue. You're talking about Chik-fil-a b/c the news has hyped it. We're talking about queers b/c they've likewise been hyped in the media. They're irrelevant but they serve our rulers as a distraction from more pertinent issues like who issues our currency.

    As for marriage rights, how bout freeing men of obligations to pay women. Women are obligated to give men nothing under the law in a marriage.
  • Laxpolilla
    Ohsha, are you butthurt about a bad break up? Because you seem like you honestly hate anyone who isn't a straight male. Scratch that, you probably hate anyone who isn't you.

    1. The phrase "artificially popular" doesn't make sense. Something cannot be "fake popular". It is either popular or it is not. I take that as reason alone to find the rest of your comment invalid, but I'll elaborate a little more just for shits and giggles.

    I will admit that Obama's support of gay marriage was sudden and I still feel like it's a cop out to divert public attention from his failed promises in his 1st term and lowering approval rate. However, that does not make the issue itself less valid. America's ignorance of its past mistakes is doing wrong to a group of people who don't deserve it. In the course of our history we've done it time and time again: to women, to African Ameircans, to the Japanese, to the Native Americans. The fact that we've had to right these wrong and yet there are STILL people who don't have their rights is disgusting on what we believe in as a country. Regardless of who's in office or why, this issue has to be resolved.

    2. The concept of allimony (I assume that's what you're talking about, which by the way, is about DIVORCE, not marriage) exists because when two people are married, their assets are combined and they are recognized as a set. Everything the man owns belongs to the woman and vice versa. Therefore all of assets they have acquired over the course of their marriage belong equally to both of them. That is why the woman gets half.

    As for continued payments AFTER the divorce, this is a little bit more complicated. It's left over from a time when women were practically assets of men. They did not own property and had little options as far as employment. You could also argue that it was created to right the wrong from ealier times when women weren't even allowed custody of their children after a divorce. Both concepts are wrong of course. Like anything, it is something that needs to be righted through the courts.
    In fact, you could argue (and I do) that this actually strengthens the need for change as far as defintion and legal concepts of marriage are concerned in this country. It's not just a "moral" standpoint. Gays aren't the only ones being treated by the system unfairly, and we as a nation need to look at the entirety of how we handle marriage to understand how it can be bettered for all.
  • Plotspider  - Nope
    avatar
    Chicken sandwiches were allegedly not invented then, so...I guess that means we're in the clear on that one.
  • memoryresident
    avatar
    Did you know Hitler enjoyed LIVING?

    So all of you people that have enjoy life are NAZIS!
  • Kavonde
    avatar
    Actually, wasn't Hitler a lifelong depressive who ultimately committed suicide?

    I don't think he enjoyed living all that much.
  • Xed Regulus
    avatar
    A very well done essay. I agree that the consumer needs to have an awareness of the product they consume. There are good and ill to nearly all consumable products in our society, and we are responsible for our own awareness. It is a difficult matter to choose whether the social ills caused by a consumables production are worth the enjoyment gathered by the consumption of it. Also, discussion on such matters should occur, and they should be done in a thoughtful & respectful manner. Ignorant displays of anger that shut down discussion does not mean that person has won the argument. It actually invalidates that position, and make it difficult for other to respect anyone expounding that view in the future.

    All that being said, there is nothing wrong with being LGBTQ. My name is Gerald, and I am a LGBTQ Ally. I have friends all across the sexual spectrum. While I don't share all their proclivities, I still respect and love them all the same. If people don't like it, I don't care. Bigotry is small, ignorant and dirty. Oh, I'm also a Catholic, and I STILL don't hate gay people. Did I just blow your mind?
  • Nolan
    To your second paragraph:

    Not really, considering one of my state's bishops was openly gay.
  • Sparda219
    I'm both gay AND a Catholic, I don't think the teachings of Christ and my sexuality are opposed at all.
  • Sir laughter
    avatar
    It depends whether or not you follow the old testament. BTW, if anyone says they follow the old testament to theletter, they are either a liar or should be classified as a psychopath.
  • Brother Atticus
    avatar
    Well, the Old Testament offers context on the "old covenant," which Christians are not and have never been bound to (critics' constant citing of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to attack Christianity are, therefore, ever futile). However, homosexuality is decried 5 other times throughout the Bible, including in the New Testament. But it still doesn't say to bully anyone, kill anyone, or that anyone is less of a human being despite their habits. It simply says don't commit the act. One need not desire theocratic laws to be a devout Christian.
    Incidentally, I didn't consider Cathy's comments "hardline". He said (very candidly) that he does not agree with the lifestyle, much like one might have misgivings with a gambling addiction on my part. Not exactly fascism. But to each his own.
  • tyrong kojy
    Actually, considering Jesus said that neither a jot nor tittle of the old law will be changed, they're actually not futile efforts. Yeah....
  • Plotspider  - Hmmm
    avatar
    Yes, that confirms that the entire Bible should be consulted about issues, not just the one that proves our points. Both Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality, though only one condemns certain types of other sins. For instance, before there was the Mosaic law, it was pretty much anything goes. After the Mosaic law, it became wrong to have sex with certain people: people of the same sex, people in one's own family (other than spouse), children, animals, etc. The Mosaic law also said everyone had to be circumcised, and that no one should eat pork. However, many of those issues are addressed and amended in the New Testament, such as the eating of pork and circumcision. Oddly, none of the sexual taboos were repealed or amended, but were supported. This suggests that sexual sins are, in fact, still sins (at least to believers in the Bible).

    Furthermore, Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law, which was IMPOSSIBLE to follow completely and correctly. Many theologians believe the law (the Mosaic law) was put into place to show people just how dependent upon God to do what was right over what was wrong and how difficult it could truly be to please God, who is perfect. Jesus became the ultimate lawyer, in effect, for those who sought after God and to be pleasing to him. Basically, what this means is that our part is attempting to be pleasing to God; Jesus' part is covering up the problems we have doing that. It's kind of like God loves our macaroni pictures, and Jesus cleans up the mess after making them. For some reason, God doesn't seem to want people to engage in homosexuality. If it matters to a person whether or not they please God, then they will attempt to avoid homosexuality, just like anything else God says is displeasing. If a person doesn't care, well, no one says they have to, if they don't wish to be with God or be pleasing to Him. People can choose whether or not to give a crap about God's opinion, but they must be ready to accept the consequences of those choices and be rejected by those who DO give a crap about God's opinions and commandments.
  • JetstreamGW
    avatar
    Also, as I recall nothing JESUS ever says craps on gays.

    Paul and/or Peter, on the other hand, tended to be a little vocal in their viewpoints. Many of which are ignored today (Like the whole "stop having babies thing" that was popular for a couple decades).
  • Bloodrealm
    "Like the whole "stop having babies thing" that was popular for a couple decades"
    Who said anything about Zardoz?
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    Except that the NT verses reffer to PEDERASTY, not homosexual.

    Bother to learn greek, dumbass.
  • Great Dragon Amarante
    avatar
    Now, as a Christian and a scholar I’s like to say a few things. For one thing, the bible is ancient and some of the rules are outdated, kind of like old laws that are still on the books but everyone ignores. (For example in my town there’s a rule that an automobile can only go 5mph so they don’t scare and endanger farm-horses. The town speed limit is 30 these days but the law is still on the books.)Christianity, like any other religion, evolved over time, the bible is the original code of ethics. Another thing is everyone sees the bible a little differently; two people can read the exact same verse and get two totally different things out of it. It’s a wonder that there are not more branches to Christianity. That and there’s the fact that the bible was translated many, many, times and I remember reading that one of the translators back in the 1600s hated the idea of gay relationships so he may have…er…mistranslated a few things. (Like a fan scanlation of a manga trying to make a character seems stupid because the translator hates said character. Yes, this does happen.)That translation may have carried over into the later editions so I take the anti-gay passages with a grain of salt. Taking all this into account, yes, sometimes a modern Christian has to pick and choose what to follow especially when it comes to the Old Testament which was all fire and brimstone. Of course there are those who believe in the fire and brimstone part and forget the love thy neighbor part. Just take the important lessons out of it and be a good, tolerant and loving person and everything will work out. Judge not lest ye be Judged and all that.
  • Julien Brightside
    avatar
    Most rules from the Bible isn't very clear on the "why" part of things though.
  • Xed Regulus
    avatar
    Neither do I. Jesus told us to love everyone, so how can love ever be a sin? It can't and shouldn't be called one by the Church.
  • the gangsta of love
    Same here. myself, Andy Warhol, Ryan murphy, (I think Sir Elton John, is too, but don't quote me on it) and the the hundreds of members of gaychristian.net are all here, queer and believers of Jesus christ.
  • ohe  - consumer needs to have an awareness of the product
    avatar
    That should only apply to the product itself, not where the money may or may not end up in. If you go the other route there's no end to how convoluted the shallow ethics of the issue can go. What if your perfectly good burger joint buys shoes for their workers from a perfectly good shoe shop, but that shoe shop unwittingly buys the leather through some seedy enterprise that lies about the origins? Wallowing on these things is not savvy, it's just stupid and shows how little understanding a person has about large-scale economics. Namely, the fact that you can't follow where your money goes without some major societal compromises.

    Just handle the assholes using the means we already have, like founding a chicken shop that's just like Chick-Fil-A but DOES hire gays. Unless of course that's literally impossible, which could only be if that sweet taste is actually just concentrated anti-gay hatred. In which case we all might need to readjust our views anyway.
  • fat1fared  - Well done, you prove 2+2 is 5!
    She was no on about obligations to third parties, she was on about your direct accountability for your direct actions. The simple answer to your question is, if you unknowingly buy was shop which buys from Evil-Corp X you cannot be blamed because you did not know and are not accountable for the final resting place of your money. However that has nothing to do with you knowingly funding others erroneous acts. If McDonalds was found to be funding the IRA, (Oh wait...) and you still bought them from them, aiding their aid to these terrorists the blood is as much on your hands as it is theirs because you openly supported that act.

    This is direct accountability and oblique intent, not indirect accountability.
  • ohe
    avatar
    And what if you openly decide how far exactly are you going to investigate the chain of ethical action before deciding to trust your luck, consequences be damned? We're talking that YOU are fully able (or rather, aren't) to find out whether or not the shoe leather is legit, but instead insist on deeming things unethical based on whatever information you happen to stumble upon. That's no more ethical than calling it quits from the beginning and dealing with any problems through different methods, it's just short-sighted and self-satisfactory morality play.

    You're still stuck with the completely inane supposition that by buying a product you're "funding" each and every action the money then goes to support due to different people's personal decisions. That's not the case. You're just giving credit where credit is due, like any sensible person would. You should also remember that my example goes the other way around as well, in that even an unethical company needs to likewise forward their money to good causes. You would deny those their money as well, just because there was the middleman?
  • Plotspider  - Kosher?
    avatar
    This is precisely the arguments that go into whether something is Kosher or not. How was the cow raised, how was it killed, etc.? I find it hilarious that people honestly think they can survive in this world without playing some part in consuming unethically produced goods.

    It's not a fun fact, but a sad one, that there is nothing fat, bloated America indulges in, or survives with, that did not somehow come from the efforts of a third-world country's unethical practices, whether it be the chopping down of rain-forests to make beef, the drilling of oil in environmentally hazardous or politically unstable ways, sweatshops in China, etc. If you wish to live a completely ethical life, you might as well go and live out in a shack you build with your own hands and eat nothing but the berries you manage to pick from property you, yourself own, without using pesticides, and without ever using toilet paper. Good luck.
  • ThoseGirlsWithTheGlasses
    avatar
    That's not really what fat1fared is saying. fat1fared is saying that if you know a company is directly supporting or doing something you think is unethical, such as funding terrorism or running sweat shops, then it's up to you how responsible you are if you continue to buy that product regardless. fat1fared is not saying you should feel guilty every single time you buy something because somewhere down the line, unbeknown to you, something unethical has happened to get that product to the shop.

    It's an interesting debate and in the end, we all need to decide for ourselves how responsible we are if you knowingly buy products from companies that directly do things that are unethical. You are entitled to your opinion that there will always be something enethical somewhere, so you shouldn't feel guilty in any way if you buy a product from a company that you know is unethical. However personally, if I know a company is unethical and I have the option of buying a similar product elsewhere, I will do so on principal, but that's just my opinion. Like I say, you're entitled to yours but please don't say it's stupid to feel guilty about supporting companies you know are unethical.
  • CrashBandicootFan
    avatar
    Sir, this is hardly the time or the place to discuss such matter.
  • Dragonmouth
    avatar
    I'm a little disappointed that you didn't mention that one of the most memorable scenes in "Ender's Game" involves a fight between two naked boys covered in soapy water.

    And what's more, Card apparently wrote "Songmaster," a story so homoerotic it got criticism from conservatives. That guy's got some issues to work out.
  • Plotspider  - What?
    avatar
    I haven't read Songmaster, so I'm not sure about that one, but have you never heard of a prison environment? People fight in the shower in compulsory housing situations, because that's one of the few places where guards or adults won't intervene and where people are vulnerable to attack. This is true of prisons, and probably also true of boy's locker rooms and boy's homes. It doesn't make them homosexual to fight in the shower, unless you believe homosexuality is an environmental thing or you believe rape/violence is a quintessential part of homosexual behavior.
  • AtrosMM
    avatar
    That's exactly what I was thinking, the first of Card books I read was Songmaster, he wrote it on the 81 and it was a highly(and very pretty) homoerotic book, you can even see a little of it on Ender's game still.
    Which makes this all this come as shocking news to me since I pretty much assumed the guy to be at the least bi-curious.
    A quote by Card himself:

    "What the novel offers is a treatment of characters who share, between them, a forbidden act that took place because of hunger on one side, compassion on the other, and genuine love and friendship on both parts. I was not trying to show that homosexuality was "beautiful" or "natural" -- in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be "beautiful" only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating. Those issues were irrelevant. The friendship between Ansset and Josif was the beautiful and natural thing, even if it eventually led them on a mutually self-destructive path"

    So yes it was about forbidden love, and this is only ONE of the multiple relationships on the book, tough yes it was the only one that consummated. I am getting a inkling of what its his real problem, poor guy.
  • Valzahd
    avatar
    I always find some bittersweet amusement when people against same-sex marriages fueled by religious teachings use evolution just to try and prove their side right. While the other implications of evolution are denounced by those same people.

    They always want their cake and to eat it too.
  • Mattevansc3
    But evolution was never officially denounced by Christianity. The Christian Church helped fund Darwin's reserach.

    The issue originally was over "natural" evolution vs "intentional" evolution. The Church saw evolution to be how God did it and that it was born out of love. Darwin's natural evolution theory, which revolved around survivl of the fittest, gave it a much more violent, darker tone and that's where the conflict came from.

    As with any argument the longer it continues the further it travels from it original points. Darwin's original research was agnostic at best, it wasn't there to answer why but how and wasn't intended to prove or disprove God's existence or the Churches validity. Aetheists took a hhold of this theory and took it to its logical extreme and used it to "prove" God didn't exist, fundementalists seeing evolution as the crux of the argument have spent their energy denouncing evolution as a whole as opposed to the theory of natural evolution.

    Both sides are as bad as the other in this aspect. Aethists completely denounce the idea of "Intelligent Design" which while in the hands of fundementalists is a crackpot theory does have scientific method. Intelligent Design at its core is a theory of curated evolution, whereby inter-species evolution is a guided process not an accdental one. We as humans have already demonstrated its plausible through our own creation of Chimera species, species that would never have existed if we didn't purposefully create them. We have been succesfully been guiding the evolutionary course of dogs and livestock for millenia, before we even understood genetics, by breeding favourable traits and preventing the breeding of unfavourable trraits.
  • Laxpolilla
    "Atheists too a hold of this theory and took it to its logical extreme and used it to "prove" God didn't exist"

    Lumping all atheists together is incredibly vague. As we don't have a religion, we all believe things on various levels. Yes, there are atheists who are bitter and petty and spend too much time being pretentious towards theists, but that does not make us all haters who go out to "prove" God is wrong. We just don't believe he exists.

    And most of us do know that Darwin was religious and wasn't out to disprove his religion, and we take the theory of evolution the same way. It exists and therefore it is. God plays no equation to us. For those who do believe it disproves god, it has to do with the same violent nature of survival of the fittest that bothers the church as well. The concept of Intelligent Design says each creature was created perfectly by god, but there are plenty of examples of creatures that are NOT suited and will die (ex. venus fly traps, which conservationists are having a hell of a time saving simply because the things are not suited well for their method of survival.)

    "...Chimera species....that would never have existed if we didn't purposefully create them."

    Actually, chimera occur naturally in nature. Yes, it is also possible with science, but many of the most famous examples of chimerism are perfectly natural, created when two zygotes fuse to become one. There are examples of cats, lobsters, and even humans who have had the condition. There's even a fascinating condition called bilateral gynandromorphism that occurs when a male and female zygote fuse, creating an individual that is male on one side of its body and female on the other.
  • Lemanic
    So Ender's Game is like Atlas Shrugged Light?
  • Filby
    avatar
    I haven't read either, but from what I understand, "Atlas Shrugged" was written solely to spread Ayn Rand's philosophy, whereas "Ender's Game" was written to tell a story and was merely influenced by Card's religious beliefs. So I don't think it's a fair comparison.
  • Khellendros
    avatar
    i have read enders game, and both of the 3 book sequels, surprised you didnt mention the other ones, starting with enders shadow which for most of it granted is a re telling of enders game from the viewpoint of a different studet there, but i dont really care personally about the viewpoints of the person who writes something i like. i love other book series and i dont really bother to care about their other stuff, i mean i love alot of the books terry brooks writes, but for all i know he may be like space hitler (anything space is much worse than the earth counterpart) but i am prolly ranting by now, oh, and i heard there are going to be differences between the book and move (yes i know big surprise)
  • Rob T. Les  - An ex-mormon and they chose to make an account.
    I made my account, because I really had to say something about Card.

    I am no longer a Mormon, I broke away from the church and their teachings. I do not "thumb my nose at them." either. I love my family and their faith and they are wonderful people, however now that I have explained my background to an extent. Orson Scott Card is a F@#*ing idiot and I can still love his books.

    NChick I agree with your statements, though not your conclusion, or what I felt was almost a lack of one. Yes we can love a work from a complete bigot/idiot/moron. There should not be a discussion on the author's intended message vs. another's interpretation of said message.An interpretion is to give or provide the meaning of a particular work. The audience does this without the author, it is automatic. The only reason the Author's intended message and background/history behind the work is important is when we wish to delve into a deeper meaning behind the work or to expand our knowledge of the work in question to improve our interpretation. Card's current outside personality should have no sway over our love of his work until that personality pervades his work, like his more recent ones. My belief is that artistic works should be interpreted by the audience and then explored further after the initial interpretation to give a greater understanding of the work and further inform the audience on what they are reading/hearing/seeing/ ect.

    I still eat chick-fil-a even though they are in my personal belief A**hats. they make good chicken sandwiches. I will enjoy them whether or not they have terrible beliefs, I believe that what a private company/artist/ect. happen to believe or follow is their choice as a private entity and the only thing the consumer can do in this situation is either to avoid them or just enjoy the good parts. I understand both Card and Chick-fil-a are idiots and nothing they can do will stop the biggest civil rights movement of our generation.

    Their stupid A**hattery will punish them in the future, they have no power to change what is coming. Chick-fil-A and Card are just bigots who happen to have really good sandwiches and a couple good books, I won't stop eating/reading the good because they decided to take a step in the wrong direction. Their beliefs may be backwards and they are not perfect, but their sandwiches/ stories are pretty close to perfect.

    ps. You should read the Bean Shadow series, way better overall.
  • Drake666
    avatar
    You're totally right about the Shadow Series. I think Card have more control of the Enderverse now then ever. I think the books are becoming better and better (ok, NChick got a point on Children of the Mind, though).
  • DreamingWings
    The general punishment for stupid A**hattery comes from people refusing to financially support said feces covered haberdashery.
  • Ancel De Lambert
    avatar
    Ima have to read this now. Damn my English major.
  • EXPLODA!
    avatar
    Don't make me boycott you too for buying that sammich!
  • ShuyinK
    avatar
    Well that's just great, I just finally bought the book and started to read it. Guess I need to Throw it away now.
  • ManWithGoodTaste
    avatar
    Lindsay, there is something terribly wrong with your laptop's battery; you need to look into that pronto!
  • Bloodrealm
    Nah, it must be a Dell. All the laptops at my highschool were like that, only worse. Only about 30 minutes of battery life when it said "100%" and "2 hours remaining" (which is a pretty bad battery life, itself). They were also slow as shit.
  • That Sap with the Smut  - Longtime Fan
    avatar
    Also I am an aesthete who believes that "marriage", gay or straight, should be stricken from government in general, in favor for a co-dependent registry that whoever is involved can call said relationship whatever they please.

    And I have to say that while I love that you did not come to a conclusion about the Content vs Author debate, leaving it to us, I felt without this conclusion you could have made a general video about said debate using a variety of sources and examples while here it dominated what was also supposed to be a review at the same time, but felt much more heavy on the idea of Content vs Creator, instead of the actual content itself.
  • Mr.Evil
    avatar
    Lots of great points here, but I'll focus on two:

    - I believe everyone is entitled to their views, but when somone starts to promote their views in an attempt to sway opinion and policy, you can no longer afford to not make it a factor in how you see that person's body of work. I can't support Card these days, even though I liked Ender's Game, because of this.

    - The movie: as mentioned above, there's a real chance I won't see it no matter what. But I am curious about it. Card's personal beliefs aside, Ender's Game has a lot of things that never made it really "filmable." Chiefly:

    * Child soldiers as heroes, endorced by society (and don't tell me the image that pops into your head when you hear that term isn't a bad one).

    * A child hero who commits brutal acts all through the story, culminating in a big one at the very end (unwittingly, though).

    * A society where population growth is tightly controlled, amongst other things.

    * A fair amount of violent imagery that would make the story close to R-rated if kept as is.

    Studios don't spend a lot of money on R-rated films, and that's what this movie would be in the end IF utterly faithful. So they're going to have to tone it down to make it digestable. Again, it'll be curious to see how this works out.
  • Laxpolilla
    Well guys, this is what illegally downloading things off the internet is for! We can all see Ender's Game and not give Card a cent!
  • oneydjohn
    I hated ender's game, the reason is the same for the other books that I have tried to read by Mr. Card. The system wins no mater what, and people are stupid and easily mend able to the will of the system.

    But I don't think he is a bad author. I think that Mr. Card is a REALLY good author that I just don't like.

    As for his controversial views, I can hate an artist but like is work without much problem.
  • Furious George  - Reposting from blip cause my points are good!
    avatar
    Ugh, geez people... let the man believe what he wants to believe, enjoy his books (OR their chicken) and shut up!

    I'll reiterate my faith like I did in NChick's last video since its relevant here... I'm a devout Christian (please lower your pitchforks) and I read lots of books with anti-Christian sentiments (see, Stephen King). One of my favorite authors, John Steinbeck, regularly called everything I believe in to be a lie through his literature. I tend to just roll my eyes and continue reading because I'll be a gimp if that man's prose isn't heavenly.

    I don't get on Stephen King blogs and bash the man for having an opinion that's different from my own, I don't boycott his stuff, I don't do ANY of the annoying radical things that by stereotype (dumb intolerant christian here) I am required to do. The ironic thing about all this is that the people who participate in the feces throwing on Card's blogs are the same people who will be disgusted by J.K Rowling book-burning campaigns. Hypocrisy, what's that?

    One of the things I love about books is that they give us a chance to look into the imagination of people with different views and beliefs on a different level. Yeah, he hates gays. Yeah he hates God, great... but what kind of world would he create? What would a "hero" be like in the mind of a bigot? And here's the kicker.... is his idea of a hero the same thing as mine IN SPITE of the fact that he's a raving homophob?

    That's why I think people are so especially upset with poor Mr. Card. They were pulled out of the wonderful world of fantasy and realized they "connected" themselves with a man who doesn't like everything they like.

    Our intolerance (because yes, it works both ways. Sorry, Card haters) will forever keep us from understanding each other.
  • fat1fared  - Interesting points!
    I think King is a good opposite here, due to him holding actually rather extreme views as well. However I feel the reason most get so upset at Card is because his literate seemed so supporting of liberty, and then he comes out and shows in fact he supports the very thing many held his book to stand against.

    King on the other hand could not be more clear on where he stands.

    That being said, I feel that you are correct, it seems harsh to overly judge the man because we misunderstood him. I personally think his early works have little to nothing to do with gay rights and so should not be touched in this area.
  • Brother Atticus  - *wades through crowd of pitchforks*
    avatar
    Thank you, very well-said, my friend. Being a Christian in the new generation endures a lot of undeserved backlash, and all of it is based on things that have nothing to do with whether Christ was liar, lunatic, or Lord. Cliché alert: Can't we all just get along?
  • Zachary Amaranth
    avatar
    If only the people who took the "shut up and read the books" route were so vocal when it came to people who weren't preaching homophobia.

    I'm used to false equivalence on the internet, so it came as no shock to me that you chose to equate "intolerance" towards one's beliefs to intolerance to something inherent, but it still disappoints me. Should we also lay off those poor Klan men? I mean, intolerance simply because they desire to make the South a "[N-Word's] Graveyard is SO harsh."

    Yegads, people.
  • Vismutti
    avatar
    If it was still possible in these comments, I'd give you thumbs up, Zachary.
  • kurokotetsu
    avatar
    Being ignorant I do ask, does Mr. King say anything that Crhistians should have less rights? If the answer is "No", then there is a difference between hating and boycotting both authors for me. At the end one is actively advocating discrimination while the other is simply against the beliefs and rituals of others, while not denying them rights. For me that is a huge difference.

    Yes, it may be interesting to understand or see the ideas of a bigot, but if my money is going to actively support his advocacy or his beliefs, well I can boycott him without being a hypocrite when I yell that book burning is wrong (as there is also a huge difference between book burning and boycotting, as one is simply refusing to buy and another is actively destroying and probably interfering with the ability of other to buy said book).

    If Mr. Card is openly against the rights of people, I find it fine to be intolerant. There are things you can't tolerate (murder, rape, for the more extreme examples) and there is nothing wrong with that. There is a difference with disagreeing with some one and being intolerant, and for me it is when the other is in any form violating the rights of another. I'm intolerant to those people (as I am against those who deny scientific truth) and I'm not apologetic about that (there are other ways to understand people after all, such as neuroscience).

    Edit: What I say is that I would have no qualms with a work with different beliefs (even if they were anti-gay) if they didn't transpire into intolerance. If Mr. Card where to say "I don't approve their lifestyle" but didn't go to say that he was against their right to marry I wouldn't mind. There is a difference between an opinion and an intolerant posture, one being unacceptable to me. After all, if all the opinions would affect me I wouldn't read much (for example, most if not all pre-XXth century literature would be lost to me for being a strong ateist)
  • Reetin  - Why!?
    avatar
    Nchick,

    Now, while your opinion is valid and other people's should be considered as well, why should this be one of your videos? I understand doing Ender's Game, however going into the whole social commentary shouldn't be the main focus of the video. Why should anyone care what this guy say about Gay marriage? Just because he thinks it is wrong doesn't mean that he has a less valid opinion than yours, or anyone else's.

    This is what gets me, the people who support gay marriage, weed legalization, all that jazz, are also the same people who claim to have "open minds." The main problem is that they don't have open minds. If someone says "Oh well I think that gay marriage shouldn't be legal" whether for political, religious, or personal reasons they get internet videos made by these "open minded" people saying how their opinions are wrong.

    I am not even against gay marriage, I am just against people throwing it in my face. I watch these videos for entertainment, not because an obscure restaurant I have never heard of is against gay marriage.
  • OmegaGeek
    avatar
    I'm not against straight people, I'm just against them throwing their 'straightness' and extra rights in my face.

    See how that can go both ways?

    What do you define as 'throwing in your face'; the fact that it exists? Maybe the fact that there's inequality in the world and you feel bad about it, deep down? Also, Card is famous and should be aware that whether he likes it or not, more people are going to take notice of his opinions than they would the guy who works in the mail room.
  • Reetin
    avatar
    The thing I have a problem with is people constantly talking about how "Gay Marriage should be legal, and if you don't agree with that you are just full of hate and your opinion means less." Also, it seems that all of you forgot to realize that I am actually FOR gay marriage. I just don't care if someone else is against it, even if he is someone who is famous.

    I do realize that people haven't actually said the quote I put up earlier. However, the implication is there, not in this video, but even in the comments.

    Some people have religious beliefs that say that homosexuality is a sin. In the Bible it says straight out that homosexual acts are sins. So, when people say that those people are full of hate, or wrong, you are actually being a bigot towards their beliefs.
  • Nyar
    avatar
    Dude please, think of what you are saying. Once black people were slaves in big part because the bible says they SHOULD be. Religious people have used and misused the bible to denied equal rights to more people than just "the gays"... Banning slavery is being a bigot too?
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    1- The verses used to justify said beliefs were mistranslated. Bother to learn greek and aramaic, imbecile.

    2- Under your hypocrital logic, you should support genocide and rape.
  • RestlessVagabond
    avatar
    That's because people who say, "Oh well I think that gay marriage shouldn't be legal" tend to not have any valid argument to back up those claims. At least not an argument I've ever heard. And frankly there shouldn't be tolerance for that kind of ignorance. Tolerating people being racists, bigots and homophobes because "that's their opinion" is how we end up with vast inequalities and injustices in our society when those people with their opinions go on to be in charge of things. Most of us probably don't remember why things like the Civil Rights movement, the Equal Rights movement, child labor laws, etc all came into being. Because most of us didn't have to live in a society that thought of us as expendable, second class citizens, or worse. But there are still people in our world today that have to struggle with the realization that they're thought less of or looked down on by people in both their day to day lives and our government - simply because they love someone outside the guy & girl model. How would you like it if something that was part of your identity, part of your very make-up, was ridiculed, called into question and had laws made against it? Hopefully you'd be getting in people's faces about it too - at least until things were set right.

    And to be honest - the gay marriage thing is going to get thrown in your face until the day there is marriage equality. 50 years ago would you have been the guy saying, "I'm so tired of all these blacks always throwing their civil rights in my face?"

    Would you stop if it was you being socially, politically, religiously and economically oppressed?
  • ohe
    avatar
    One could ask, why should any marriage be legal anyway? What kind of a societal justification is there for it?
  • Phil Buni
    avatar
    Sorry someone mad you think bro. You mad?
  • Heidegger
    avatar
    Yeah, well I support racial segregation. I don't think it should be legal for one of the colored races to marry a white person. Our society has been going downhill ever since the so-called civil rights movement of the 1960s. I mean just look around. And then I get nothing but intolerance any time I so much as open my mouth about these things. To actually hear them call themselves "tolerant" and "open-minded" when they don't even bother to hear my side just makes me laugh.
  • Extreme-Madness  - re:Heidegger >:(
    avatar
    I hope this is just trolling(or you are just ironic), because I usually do not like when people with green skin, speak out against interracial marriage, and basic human rights.
    It is very hypocritical for a man with green skin.
  • Heidegger  - A satirical parallel, not a troll
    avatar
    The user "Furious George" implied that not liking someone and not buying their products based on one's dislike of their intolerance of a group and their opposition to civil rights equated to the same level of intolerance espoused by the person. I was making fun of this notion.
  • An ExtraordinaryGentleman
    avatar
    Except I've yet to hear a valid argument for why gay marriage shouldn't be wrong. Your point about open minds doesn't really work if the other person's view is bigoted.

    If someone says "Oh well I think that interracial marriage shouldn't be legal", you would oppose that, right? Or would it be the "open minded" thing to let this person have his obviously wrong opinion?
  • Bloodrealm  - Chicks fill what? Enough, already!
    Finally, someone else who has never heard of a Chick-Fil-A in their life other than on this website! Is Chick-Fil-A a franchise that only exists in the southern reaches of the US? I live in Ontario, Canada (that's the province with the Great Lakes attached to them, Americans, it borders Michigan and stuff), and I had no friggin' idea what a Chick-Fil-A was until I heard someone on TGWTG.com say something random about it not being open on sundays. I think that throwaway gag line from Angry Joe in Kickassia was it. And, honestly, I'm pretty certain I already knew more about Molossia before that than about Chick-Fil-A.
  • Vismutti
    avatar
    I don't think the social commentary here is misplaced because NChick almost always does that nowadays: talking about different aspects of media and popular culture and the issues related to them. And because the subject is still culture here, it just focuses on a relationship between a work and the outside world. So since it's her thing and it is relevant to this whole reviewing business AND it's something that complements the other reviewers on this site by taking a different view point, I think it's perfectly relevant.
  • satireknight
    THANK you. I am sick sick sick sick of hearing about gay marriage and the "right" (what right? MARRIAGE ISN'T A RIGHT) to marry. I am tired of people immediately leaping up in arms if somebody somewhere says they're not in favor of it. I am sick of preachy little jpgs being forwarded to me to show the tolerance and open-mindedness of the forwarder.

    I just want people to shut up about it unless they are directly involved in making it happen.

    It's become a cheap and dirty barometer for people's overall moral state, just like religion or political affiliation. If you belong to this group, you're automatically bad/good and stupid/smart! If you don't actively support gay marriage, you're evil bigots!

    And no, art should not be shunned because of the author's personal views. Plenty of artists from the past held opinions that would be disgusting by our current standards, but nobody cares that they were bigots.

    I mean, HG Wells advocated the bombing of the Vatican and opposed Catholics' basic rights like being able to get government jobs and marry who they pleased. Has that stopped anyone from reading "War of the Worlds"?
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    You seem too stupid to realise HG Wells is dead and not influencing catholic rights, while Card is still alive.

    No wonder people think religion is retarded.
  • Tameel1
    @Reetin:

    Because there's a VERY big difference between being intolerant of minorities (and whether or not they deserve equal rights), and being intolerant of someone else's intolerance.

    If people are intolerant of gays/non-whites/etc getting married, then that minority is having their rights squashed.

    But if people are intolerant of someone else's intolerance...nothing happens. If a group of people say to a straight person, "I think you're an idiot for being against gay marriage," nothing is going to happen besides that person getting their feelings hurt. No politician is going to open a ballot on whether or not straight people should have the right to get married. No news stories about straight-bashings or straight-suicides are going to start cropping up on the news. No doctor is going to refuse that person basic entry into their partner's hospital room just because they're a straight couple.
  • Lakiver
    avatar
    Maybe your most poignant and thoughtful video yet, Lindsay. Ender's Game has been my favorite science fiction novel since I was about ten, and it's only recently that I have learned about Card's views, which really is soul-crushing. It's hard to realize someone you admire and/or even emulate can turn out to be such an asshole.

    This was a very thorough video that hopefully inspires discussion.

    Also, I never liked Chick-fil-A, so it's no skin off my nose boycotting them.
  • gnomejon
    Though I have not and do not plan (in the near future) to read Card's books, and I do not agree with his views and public message towards the gay community, none of it would stop me from going out and purchasing his books if I chose to read them. Purchasing a creative work of art that you get enjoyment out of should not be determined solely based on your view of the author/artist as a person.

    Some of my favorite authors have views that I heavily disagree with, yet I will still consume their works because I see them as works of art and love that I get true enjoyment out of. It is like shunning something like the Mona Lisa because you heard Leonardo Da Vinci was gay (not sure if this is true, did a quick internet search and his name came up). Every influence in an artist's life helped create each work of art they created, and if they changed or were different from the outset, it wouldn't be the same and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now, not because his stance would be different, but because his books wouldn't have been the same.

    I also don't think Chic-fil-a is a viable comparison to him either, yes they share a similar stance, but its two completely different consumer products. One is a creator of works of art and pieces of culture, and the other makes good chicken sandwiches...For food, there is always another choice for good similar food (fast food anyway), for books and artwork looking at similar works isn't the same because the differences loom larger, each is both contextually and literally different from another (unless its an intentional copy).

    One more thing before I sign out, when I buy a book or a movie or a game, I am not supporting the person's beliefs, I am supporting their creative spirit and the quality of their works. As long as I appreciate their art I will continue to support it, even if I absolutely despise their political beliefs.
  • Sparda219  - Bravo
    Thank you very much Lindsay, this is the sort of issue that I have had on my mind recently. I greatly enjoy a series of books called Mistborn by the author Brandon Sanderson, the same man who took over writing The Wheel of Time.

    When I found out that Brandon Sanderson had given money to anti-gay hate groups in the past it colored my reading of his work but reading some of his essays after the fact and seeing the sort of spiritual and ethical journey he was on himself it really helped me to enjoy him as a person AND a writer again.

    Everyone has stances on certain things throughout their life and I think that these can change whether your perspective on your religion changes or if the right person comes into your life who might change the way you think about certain things. A writer's writing doesn't always tie into these same events, a creative consciousness and a social consciousness do not necessarily have to be coherent to each other. Still, Brandon Sanderson has had some really poignant thoughts and essays on why he thinks the way he does know, why he thought the way he did in the past and how he is balancing his want to be tolerant with his spiritual needs and religion.

    Card, from everything I've written, does not think about these things, or if he does he doesn't see fit to talk about them with us. It all seems to come from this political, roiling core of just hatred and ignorance. Both he and Sanderson might be against gay marriage but it's coming from different places as is demonstrated by what they've said and I think that makes all the difference.

    As a gay man I'm pretty vested in this battle because it's not just about changing some laws, it's about whether or not I get to be a person. It's about whether or not my very existence means something or if by circumstances I have no control other if it's perfectly okay for other people to tell me I do not have the same rights as them. It's a struggle many people have for many reasons and it will be a battle fought until equality is met on a global scale. It's a far-off dream, but I hold it dear.
  • Reetin
    avatar
    Why are you not a person if you don't get these laws passed? Shouldn't you consider yourself a person no matter what? Isn't that the reason to get these laws passed? Because you ARE a person, because you feel that you are being treated NOT like the person you are?

    What I am trying to say is that you are a person no matter if these laws get passed or not. Just because a law does or does not get passed does not take your humanity away from you.
  • Sparda219
    I suppose when it's been mentioned enough times it just embeds itself in my consciousness.
  • dennett316
    avatar
    He is a person, just one with fewer rights than another purely down to his sexuality....that can make a person feel less than whole, that he's somehow worth less than a straight person because he has less rights.
  • OmegaGeek
    avatar
    The US is built under the principals of equal rights under the law. We've long ago agreed that separate is not equal, and when you deny rights to one segment of the population due to a specific factor, that is discrimination.
  • Brother Atticus
    avatar
    Ehhh...I have to nitpick here. "Population" denotes "people," implying that certain laws are aimed at people, at their very cores. If you were black in the segregated South, basic services were restricted to you, of course. I, a white, had a superior water fountain available to me. I COULD choose to drink from the water fountain with the "BLACKS" sign, but why would I want to? Gay marriage bans are bans on a practice, not a people. I, as a straight man, cannot marry another man either. I am equal to a gay man in this respect. However, while the fact may not bother me, it bothers him, so the effect is the same, but I thought I should just spill why the current situation is not quite the same as segregation/black civil rights. Many people pursue that conclusion to a dishonest degree. Perhaps gov't should get out of marriage entirely?
  • Johndar
    avatar
    "I'm equal to a gay man, we both can't marry a man" Yeah, I suppose you are but think of it another way...

    You're not equal to a woman because she can marry a man and you can't. Vice versa. Gender specific laws are pretty wrong in any other circumstance, why not here?
  • TractionEra
    I really liked Ender's Game when I read it this past year along with A Planet Called Treason. I never thought to look up what Card had done online or is beliefs. I tend to distance myself from authors; I admire them for the books I've read, not for who they are.

    It's like seeing a very nice painting done by Adolf Hitler. I don't think the painting is any worse -nor any better- simply because of who the artist is; I separate the two sides of the person and examine the relevant one.

    Card wrote amazing books, and I'll take any criticism for admiring the guy. And I think I'll stop myself before I write an essay comparing him to Hitler.
  • RustyTim
    avatar
    I have had to accept that the people who make things I like aren't necessarily going to believe the same things I do. Recently, Joss Whedon went on an anti-capitalist rant where he basically said that the economy is going to collapse and a socialist utopia will rise from the ashes. I think he's an idiot for holding such beliefs, but I still enjoy watching Firefly and The Avengers all the same.

    What's more, there are a lot of people in hollywood who think the way he does, and I still put up with them because I enjoy watching the films and shows they make. I've gotten so used to creators of entertainment not having much philosophical commonground with me that when I find out that one does, I find myself pleasantly surprised, and it's for that reason that I usually just don't care what someone's beliefs are as long as the product they are making is one that I enjoy enough to pay money for.
  • Brother Atticus
    avatar
    VERY well-said, my friend. Thank you.
  • totes_Mcgotes
    avatar
    Funny, I seem to recall that he said no such thing. What Whedon actually said was that no economic system was perfect (including socialism), but that the current system is unsustainable because of its vast inequality, which not far from the truth.

    But of course, economic equality = SOSHULIZM
  • satireknight
    Excellent point. Joss Whedon is an idiot when it comes to economics and politics, but he's a brilliant artist. Why should we give him slack that other artists like Card are NOT given?
  • BirthdaySpiders  - I like a lot of what OSC has written
    But I feel the review was way too easy on his bigotry. The focus on the Hitler analogy just made it seem like criticism against him was always over the top. He said people who have same sex relationships should be put in jail as a warning to others.

    You don't say that and get an apologetic "it's a complex discussion" thing. He's exactly as horrible a person as someone who says that all blacks, or Asians, or any other ethnicity should be locked up. When the only good thing you can say is that he doesn't want them dead, just put behind bars as a warning to others? Yeah, guy's messed up. It's not up for debate, he's a homophobic hatemonger.

    And I mean this isn't down to people having different viewpoints or worldviews, as many of the commenters and perhaps Lindsay herself seem to make it out to be. There's viewpoints, and there's hate based on race or sexual orientation. The latter is something which exists far beyond the "agree to disagree" level.
  • cannedfury
    I didn't know about the Chick Fil-A thing. They're not named after Jack Chick, are they? Because that would be funnier than the overused Hitler comparisons. ...And turn their products into Ass Sandwiches.
  • polygonalchemist
    avatar
    I've never had any problem enjoying an author's work despite not approving of their personal views. I like Richard Wagner's music despite some of his extreme anti-Semitic views. I'm also a huge fan of 20's and 30's pulp fiction which is often peppered with overt racism (H.P. Lovecraft jumps immediately to mind).

    Now a lot of people will point out that these were just "products of their time". But so is Card to a certain extent. I mean, when his writing career began, the Mormon church still did not allow inter-racial marriage.

    I think diversity among speculative fiction authors is important in keeping the genera fresh, even when we strongly disagree with them. Done well, when you're writing about worlds very different from our own, our real world politics, morality, and ideals all go out the window. I read an article by Card once in which he even advocates against using your fiction to browbeat people with messages, and advocates making interesting characters who have views that are opposite of your own.

    Also, as a gay guy, I don't begrudge anyone who continues to eat at Chick-Fil-A because A: From a business perspective, their super friendly employees still deserve to be paid for their awesome service. B: We support far worse things in the world on a greater scale when we buy so much stuff that's made in sweatshops that pay their workers practicably nothing, and C: Because so many large companies also donate in support of marriage equality that makes whatever CFL spends look like a drop in the bucket.
  • Sparda219
    I think it's mostly just easier to disconnect ourselves from writers who have been dead for so long or whose views weren't considered radical in their time. As it is Card exists now and still regularly posts against the stream in an increasingly progressive environment so it sticks in the mind more. I don't think Lovecraft is any better a person in the long run, really, but the blow is softened, I guess.

    And yeah I like that you mention there are more links in the chain than the one up top. Not buying Card's books and not buying Chick-Fil-A ultimately hurts the people working behind the register way more than the higher ups.
  • satireknight
    Exactly. Lovecraft made the KKK look moderate, HG Wells wanted to restrict the rights of Catholics and said the Vatican should be bombed, and Norman Mailer was violently misogynistic. Literally violently.

    Yet I cannot imagine the Chick - or anyone else on this comment section - arguing that we should shun these authors' works because, well, they're classics and have worth as art. Why is Card any different? He's not the first or last author to be hateful, and unless that hate seeps openly into his books (a la Marion Zimmer Bradley), it should make no difference.

    I guess it's easier to forget the older artists' offensive viewpoints because Wells doesn't have a blog and Lovecraft isn't on twitter.
  • FishEyenoMiko
    avatar
    "these were just "products of their time". But so is Card to a certain extent. I mean, when his writing career began, the Mormon church still did not allow inter-racial marriage."

    Yes, but he's still writing his homophobic shit in 2012. I know older religious people who are perfectly fine with gay people having rights, so I don't buy "he's old religious dude".
  • That Sap with the Smut  - now you can't blame Lovecraft
    avatar
    that had to do with his education and rearing, him being "home schooled" by his racist mother who raised him to be a perfect daughter growing up. He actually was for equal treatment of races, though, just really educationally in the dark about issues of race. In fact his first paid editor was an African American woman who lived in an apartment above him.
  • nyarlathotepsama  - Gotta Just say this...
    avatar
    I read Ender's Game in a very, very dark time in my life. I was in Junior High, in the early 90s and I was, am and will forever be something of a socially awkward introverted intellectual, short hand, a bit of a nerd.

    I got the book for christmas that year from a random uncle I can't even remember well enough to name, one of those family members you see all of once or twice in a lifetime. I had no idea what the book was or what it was about. The version of the paper back I had and still have was one with artwork and no summery on the back cover. I decided to read it, as was my ritual, on the bus ride to school and fell in love with it almost instantly.

    Andrew was so like myself, not just in that I fancy myself intelligent or that he was bullied but his inner thought seemed to run in the same vein as my own.

    Ender's plight gave me hope at a very dark time, because only a week before hand I had begun to plan for my suicide. I was only waiting for Christmas to be done and over with and for school to start up again. I wrote and rewrote my goodbye note and picked a place where I would be found but not for a few days. But then I read Ender's Game and well...


    Life didn't seem so shitty, I was inspired as Ender rose above adversity. I finished the book in only a single day. Ender's Game saved my life, no kidding at all. I felt it was almost a religious experience for me and I know it is only a book but 14 year old me found it to be something more sublime.

    When I found out Card was, well an Ass of nearly epic proportions some years ago I did have a little cry because I sort of thought of him as a hero. No more, not in a long time, but he wrote wonderful books so fuck it I'll always love Ender's Game, the whole series in fact and I suppose I'll see the movie too. Okay had to say this, couldn't have stopped myself if I tried, emotions overloaded.
  • Nuthouse
    A lot of people don't understand this. Christians don't hate gay people, just don't like the actions, and support their human right to choose. It’s between them and God. And I will support anyone’s right to believe that gay marriage is wrong. Most activists against Gay marriage are more about not wanting to force churches to participate with something they do not believe in. (marry a gay couple or be sued) and goes into their rights of separation of church and state. This is why we have "Domestic partnership". Westbureau Baptist Church on the other hand are the intolerant ones, and their actions prove they are not real Christians.
    Also, Why do you find that it is hard to believe that someone can be against gay marriage and have a gay friend at the same time? I know many Christians that have Gay friends.
  • FishEyenoMiko
    avatar
    "Christians don't hate gay people, just don't like the actions"

    Please don't pretend to speak for all Christians. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with gays AND their actions. There are even Christians who ARE gay.
  • Nuthouse
    Did you even read my whole comment. Its about tolerance. And ("of course!"-M. Bison) there are, its statistically impossible for a large group to have the exact same beliefs. I am taking about the fundamental teachings of the Bible and the Christian belief. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
    Please reread my comment.
  • FishEyenoMiko
    avatar
    Yes I read the whole thing. You said, "Christians don't hate gay people", thus implying that all Christians believe the same thing. And later you say,

    "someone can be against gay marriage and have a gay friend at the same time? I know many Christians that have Gay friends."

    Again this implies that Christians are against gay marriage. I see nowhere in your post where you say only some or even most of them do.
  • Goobian
    From what I read online and see on tv, the extremists are not loving towards gays. They cannot wait to see them burn in hell like they feel they deserve. And they will get AIDS and die a slow painful death like the deserve because God hates Fags. Right?

    I am a lesbian. I love my gf very much. I treat her very good. I just want when I tell someone I have a gf for them to have a smile on their face and not a judgmental look. Love should always be celebrated. And I have worked damn hard for her so I will not be afraid to mention our relationship. If someone has a problem with it, it's their problem. I do not gloat, I just mention her in casual conversation. Like when someone mentions sign language I say oh I know sign language because my gf is mute and I am learning it for her. You know. Like that.
  • Nuthouse
    That would be the Westbureau Baptist Church. They distort the Bible into something that its not. They get all sorts of attention on the news even though they only have 40 Members. Like I said earlier, Westbureau Baptist Church are not real Christians, they are full of Evil and hate.
  • Heidegger  - They distort the bible into something that its not
    avatar
    . . . by cherry-picking versus for themselves that you and others have decided to cherry-pick out and ignore, right? Yeah, I'm not letting you get away with that. Someone's a gay, transgendered Christian, that's fine, whatever, but don't act like all the people hating you because of a book you both like just pulled these ideas out of their asses. They're from the exact same book your religion is based on. They didn't distort its teachings by ignoring the more accepting and loving passages anymore than you did by ignoring the more hateful and intolerant ones.
  • Great Dragon Amarante
    avatar
    Westboro Baptist Church is not a good example of Christianity, heck, most people I know don't even consider them Christian as they only seem to use the Old Testament and ignore the teaching of Jesus(You know, that whole tolerance thing). Westboro and those like them are like radical feminists (the ones who believe men are evil and women are superior) and PETA in that their radical views completely overshadow the good, descent, and intelligent people that happen to share the same beliefs. There are many different branches of Christianity as well, so people lumping all Christians together with Westboro and the extremists tick me off.(I'm tired of atheists bullying me because of those wackos, I'm not even a Baptist,I'm a Methodist.)Also, if you consider actual history and what was written in the bible, Jesus was one of the first feminists.
    Oh,and Heidegger, it's not cherry-picking it's modernization. You know how old laws were required in the old days,are obsolete now, but are still on the books. Yeah, Westboro are following those old laws and possibly stuff added in by a biased translator.
  • Heidegger
    avatar
    The point I was making is every religious person cherry-picks from their religions' texts. Whether they want to be vengeful or compassionate they can always find passages that support both, and its literally impossible to follow any religion's books and doctrines without ignoring some parts of them because of all the contradictions they contain. They're great, big books of multiple choice.
  • SkullCap
    avatar
    @NChick
    3:02
    I have heard of this and as a former employee of Chick-fil-A I can assure everyone there is no secret Don't Ask-Don't Tell policy. I worked alongside an openly gay guy and nobody cared. The sexuality of an employee is not a factor into their hiring only if they meet basic eligibility requirements.

    @Heidegger
    Now now lets not make this one-sided. I will argue that there are just as many non-religious people that cherry-pick verses and religious text without examining the context of the Scripture surrounding said picked verse. Hell, college professors seem to make it their sacred duty to cherry-pick Scripture to discredit the Bible such as statements including, "The Bible supports the malicious beating of spouses."
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    @SkullCap: Bible critics don't cherry pick, because honestly the Bible supports it's monstruousities throughout. Besides, most verses like the verses that support sexism are, well, statements; they are not part of a canon that you need context for.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    1- "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is pretentious and condescending no matter how much you sugar coat it. Sexuality is a part of a person's identity, and the mere fact that you consider love a morally despicable sin makes you little more than a sociopath.

    2- Not all christians hate gay sex. Hell, the Leviticus verse originally was against pedophilia, not homosexuality.

    3- Human rights are not opinions. Many people believe in corrective rape; according to retards against gay marriage, corrective rape should be a valid opinion, yet it is not. Stop being an hypocrite.
  • Chaosdirge  - Well I wanted to comment on something a bit differ
    avatar
    My only really problem is with your first point not the rest. Something is only pretentious as a person thinks on the matter. By claiming that the quote is pretentious aren't you in fact being pretentious to your claim. Most people pull the "love argument" but like the multiple points of what makes people homosexual love itself has many different views on what makes love... well love. People say homosexuality isn't a choice you just are, but in fact sometimes that really just isn't the case, does that mean that it isn't the case for every person? No, it doesn't and does it mean that it is a sin does it mean they should be forced to persecution? no. But that doesn't mean that these cases should be hidden. What may be true for one person may not be true for you as this video is really about. No I don't agree with this person's view that you are arguing with either. But no matter how much you sugar coat it sexuality is not about love however love can influence sexuality and sexuality influence love. "love the sinner, and hate the sin" I myself find to be a very philosophical and meaningful look on life. and in fact is really a very tolerant way to look at things through the right perception. Heck I don't even agree with calling homosexual people "gay" you know gay use to be an insult to them as well as queer, and I still know people find that insulting. Both words together use to be what described them and actually its kind of insulting to human intelligence that we haven't been able to use more than words that use to mean odd and happy to mean homosexual. I mean what is in a word? what is it that makes it so insulting? Its like saying gringo, how did the word become a de-motivational word through its evolution? Why, in Puerto Rico, is it used to describe Americans when the word use to be used for all foreigners? How did it change from meaning "I can't understand your language,"?

    Anyway, this comment has been long winded enough and I'm sure that like this video people will jump to try and attack my meaning or my views but I sincerely do not mean to attack any views merely to inform as strange as it may seem misunderstanding is what causes fights more than anything and not hatred for it, hatred just spawns from it.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    @Chaosdirge: It is still intolerant because you fundamentally aren't adressing your bigotry. "Love the sinner" has still been used as a justification for murder or otherwise nasty activities in name of what you view as morally apropriate.

    After all, the brittish did consider "love" of the indians to torture them to convert to Christianity.
  • Calbeck
    avatar
    Actually, pretty much all of Leviticus is about health issues facing a large tribe of people living in tents in the desert.

    Meaning poor sanitation.

    Meaning that when you spread blood and/or feces around (the not-unlikely result of anal penetration), you have just created a disease vector. One of the nastier ones, in fact.

    Pig raising? Disease vector. Eating bottom-feeders such as shellfish? Disease vector. Sex with a woman within X number of days of her period? Disease vector.

    All of these are in Leviticus. It's time to notice that "abomination" didn't mean "because God hates shellfish and women on their period and gays".
  • satireknight
    So you're calling someone ELSE a hypocrite… yet you use the word "retards" while demanding respect for gays?

    Hello, kettle.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    I believe "retard" has lost it's meaning.

    Look at "imbecile". It was once a respectable medical term.
  • fat1fared  - For me!
    I whole heartily believe the writers intent is the true object meaning behind a book as that is what inspired it and the messages to it are meant to mean. To go any other way means that the book has no meaning and writers may as well not bother to make message at all.

    However that being said, this does not mean subjective views are invalid, just that they are subjective. They are in my opinion, someone else taking the writers view and looking at it from a another angle to show new light on what it could mean in another persons' mind/context, or even show things the writer may have not even realised he believed.
  • Snugens  - Strong
    avatar
    I just came here from looking at Rick Perry's Strong memes..
  • Zoatebix
    avatar
    Great video Ms. Ellis! Did the fanart submission plan not work out as intended, then?

    Here's a tangentially related (and amazing) video on the use and misuse of Hitler, among other things. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=j9CjcQSbVb4
  • ECM  - Thoughts and Beliefs
    avatar
    People are allowed to have their own opinions, regardless if anyone agrees with them.

    The actions of a company like Chick-Fil-A is entirely their prerogative, just like a company who chooses to do the opposite of Chick-Fil-A. The claim that they exhibit a "Don't ask, Don't tell" is in my opinion, unfounded barring the sources revealed. And the notion that Chick-Fil-A hates gay people? This is just preposterous! I guess if you are for tradition marriage, one most certainly loathes gays?

    Just the liberal notion that if someone is against gay marriage, they must be a bigot,gay hater and so forth. Forgetting that there are fundamental ethics behind those beliefs and opinions, which people who are on the opposite side of the argument are allowed to have as well.

    The problem is, if someone says they are for gay marriage, I don't hear the liberal media saying they are "Christian Haters, God Haters, and Traditional Marriage Haters," etc.

    Bottom line, people are free to decide what side they choose, because that is their choice. Action and belief are two separate things. Believing something is morally wrong, but how one treats people is what it boils down two.

    Matthew 7.1 ""Do not judge others, and you will not be judged."

    but rather

    John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

    This is saying that people of faith are not supposed to judge other unfairly as the accuser is just as flawed as the accused. That an action, rather than the person is what is judged. This may be a hard concept to get, but it boils down to love your neighbor as yourself, not to be afraid to take a stance and point out transgressions, and let God do the rest.

    p.s. This is a prime example that shows Churches/Christians that follow their doctrine and choose not perform gay marriages will be targeted by the media and lambasted, take for all their worth, and sent to the gallows.
  • Furluge
    avatar
    Last I checked the bible commanded quite a few things. Leviticus and Deuteronomy both contain many, many rules in them. Thinks like virginal women being forced to marry their rapists if they pay a fee that amounts to around $500 USD, not wearing clothing made of mixed materials (See: Most clothing), beards or haircuts with "rounded corners", etc. etc. And that's without going into the absurd list of things you can be stoned or put to death for.

    My point is, what is so special about Leviticus 20:13 that this is the issue that a line is being drawn in the sand over? Where was that meeting where you all got together and said, "Ok, look, right, god doesn't want us to eat pork or shellfish, but, damn are they not tasty, so let's give'em a pass so I can get my BBQ and throw around the old pigskin. And those new polyester suits are great, so that's fine, and stoning people in the streets isn't getting us any points either so let's cut that out too."
  • Furious George  - B-b-b-but, Levicticus?!?!
    avatar
    Sigh... really?

    Old Testament verses are not directly applicable to New Testament faith, you have to look things up in context, yada yada yada, rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

    I wonder if you even bothered to read the verses that ECM posted or if the tired "Old Testament had a bunch of rules" fallacy is like a gag reflex to you at this point?
  • Jane the Bane
    avatar
    So... what's Christianity's excuse for wholeheartedly condemning homosexuality if the Old Testament does not apply? Paul's epistle referencing having intercourse with male prostitutes? (For that's what the greek term used in that chapter signifies.) Jesus's condemnation of Jewish marriage practices that allowed husbands to discard their wives at a whim? (For that's what the famous chapter on marriage actually contains.)

    On second thought: I don't even need to know your reason. As far as I'm concerned, you can embrace whatever insane iron age beliefs you consider valid, and worship any deity you desire.
    You think homosexuality is an affront to your deity? Fine, don't engage in a homosexual relationship, then.

    The one thing we won't stand for, however, is that you enforce your random religious taboos upon society as a whole - on millions of people who do not even share your beliefs.
  • Furluge
    avatar
    Huzzah! Someone pointed out for me that this entire issue is /about/ "An old testament verse" so I don't have to do it myself! My free time to devote to hat-cleaning has just increased by 20%!

    *brushie brushie*
  • Furious George  - Bb-b-but, Strawman Argument!?!
    avatar
    I'm sorry, I don't remember ever claiming New Testament didn't condemn homosexuality.... sooo, what are you on about again?

    Also, no one is enforcing (you meant forcing right? lol) religious taboos on anyone... Not myself, not Card, not anyone.
  • FishEyenoMiko
    avatar
    "Also, no one is enforcing (you meant forcing right? lol) religious taboos on anyone."

    Trying to get laws past to keep gay marriage illegal (or make it illegal again in places it's been legalized) is very much a case forcing religious views on others. I have yet to see any anti-gay crusader who didn't use religion as their reasoning for wanting it to be illegal.
  • Furluge
    avatar
    Except it pretty much is an Old testament issue. The old testament is where you have the very clear condemnations of homosexuality. To find the equivalent in the new testament you have stretch to make certain references mean what you want them to. You can look it up and read about it if you like.

    Not that it really matters to me, but since apparently a bunch of bronze age writings that went through multiple edits by various people with agendas as it was collected together from translations of scattered scrolls hundreds of years after the fact seems important to you, I guess its worth noting.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    @Furious George: You're a moron, then, since you are basically shoving religious taboos on other people.

    And people wonder why I call you christians sociopaths.
  • Jane the Bane
    avatar
    I'm not a native speaker, so making fun of my mistakes might not be as rewarding as you seem to think. Still, I can claim to have a better grasp of the difference between "their" "they're" and "there" than many a born-and-bred American.

    Others have already replied to your comment, but it bears repeating:

    The moment you try to ban something based on your religious taboos, you *are* forcing them on everybody.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    @Furious George: The context excuse actually only works against what ECM bsed. Bother to learn hebrew and khoine greek.

    Also, using context, Jesus is not even the Son of God. So yeah, good luck basing yourself on context.
  • Furious George  - Oh.... well this is interesting.
    avatar
    You sir have me intrigued.

    PLEASE post this "in-context" Jesus=/= Son of God verse and, by God, I'll do everything in my power to carefully explain how you totally missed the point. ^_^
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    You're rather arrogant for someone supposed to not be prideful.

    The only reason Jesus is considered the Son of God is because of the phrase "Ego eimi", "I am" (which is supposedly Yahweh's name's meaning). In actually, originally it was "Ego eimi oh on", an archaic term for "I am being honest" (which makes more sense given how the verses were phrased in greek, as Jesus comes off as saying "I am God" rather ramdomly; in John, this comes up in a conversation now thought to have been about necromancy).

    Likewise, this term also occurs in regards to Samuel and Eve, so unless you think those are also Yahweh, it is rather silly to held Jesus as God while ignoring those two.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    @ECM:

    1- Please stop being a self-centered sociopath. Nobody is infringing on christian rights, and if you honestly think opressing other human beings is a christian right, by all means commit suicide.

    2- Traditional marriage was for monetary reasons, not love.
  • ECM
    avatar
    Self-centered? I beg your pardon, sociopath? I'll take you and your questions more seriously when you do not out-right attack me and insult me.

    If you understood the concepts I was talking about, maybe you would have had a better question for me rather than tell me to commit suicide.

    The notion that in the future, the churches right to decide who they will perform marriages for will be prosecuted if they do not do what popular culture presses them to do is not a new idea. This has been a point of contingency for some time now.

    Oppression other human beings is a Christian right? Nowhere did I mention that. If you were trying to allude to the fact that I was hinting at the two sides being a Life Style vs Biology question.

    People who are not of faith can believe in either, whereas people of faith can also have the same views. The only difference, is one group believes homosexuality as an abhorrent sin against God and nature.

    This is why I brought up the two verses. Regardless of what society decides, Christians will follow their doctrine. The message is to love people as yourself. Not to judge the person, but the sin. So when society puts forth a proposition that goes against the very beliefs of said group, they are being set up for failure. Abandon their beliefs or go against the grain and stick up for what they believe.

    The dilemma is a little more complicated that just for and against.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    Again, nobody is forcing churches to marry people, just that it is legal to perform gay marriages. Stop being an ignorant fuck.

    And yes, you are self centered and sociopathic. If you had empathy for other human beings, you would not consider love a sin.

    Likewise, bother to study greek and hebrew. Christians don't really have a justification other than trying to be rebelious for the sake of being "edgy".
  • ECM
    avatar
    This is me now ignoring you.

    Go troll somewhere else.

    If you want to discuss the ethics, philosophy, and/or ideas behind something, try to avoid insulting people and act a little more respectful.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    Oh, so you resort to ignoring valid holes in your excuses because I was so meanie to you.

    More reasons to consider you a deluded sociopath, then.
  • An ExtraordinaryGentleman
    avatar
    I cannot think of anything more patronising than "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Sexuality is an important part of a person's identity, physically and mentally. You're still being critical and judgemental about them, but you're trying to mask it by saying "love you really". This is why so many gay people growing up in a religious household, particularly in the Bible Belt, are afraid to come out to their parents, and to themselves: they're in an environment that tells them their desires are wrong, even though they may be a thoroughly good person.

    Try saying this to any gay individual: "I think your lifestyle is wrong and you're going to burn in Hell for it...but I don't hate you! Honest!"

    Oh, and fun fact? There's no mention of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" in the Bible. Mahatma Gandhi - who was openly sceptical and critical of Christianity, but not necessarily Christ - said it first. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "love thy neighbour as thyself" sound more appropriate to Christianity, wouldn't you say?
  • FieldMarshalPatton^3
    If nobody is infringing on Christian rights explain children getting lectured for quitely praying over their lunch? people getting notices to hide crucifixes that are on a necklace. A man got fined for holding a private bible study in his house?
  • mrrubino
    avatar
    Oh you mean those examples that happened nowhere at no time except for the last one where the hosts kept clogging up the street with cars and not paying the tickets?
    Yeah, fake anecdotes about people being not-terribly-polite to unnamed Christians at undocumented times is definite oppression. Somewhere a saint who got eaten by a lion is pleading for you to get hit with a lightning bolt.
  • An ExtraordinaryGentleman
    avatar
    "And the notion that Chick-Fil-A hates gay people? This is just preposterous! I guess if you are for tradition marriage, one most certainly loathes gays?"

    The fact that they donate money to anti-gay groups (about $5m at the last count), including know hate groups and proponents of ex-gay therapy (which has never evr worked), might have something to do with that. Just a wild guess.

    Tell me what you mean by traditional marriage? Do you mean where the wife is subordinate and should be stoned to death if she can't prove her virginity? (Genesis 2:24) Or where a virgin who's raped must then marry the rapist? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) Or perhaps you mean where they're allowed concubines or even multiple wives?
  • ECM
    avatar
    To answer your first question, Chick-Fil-A can donate money to whoever they wish, regardless of your personal stance.

    Just as a company can donate money in favor of gay marriage, so to can a company donate against gay marriage.

    If you don't like that fact, then companies should not be allowed to donate money to any cause period in the first place...

    As for tradition marriage. I am referring to a man and a woman, not what you brought up. Keep it on track and not derail the topic with random versus, or unrelated tangents.
  • Deadly Sinner
    "To answer your first question, Chick-Fil-A can donate money to whoever they wish, regardless of your personal stance."

    Why do you keep arguing a point that no one is arguing against?

    Absolutely no one here has said that people or companies are not or should not be allowed to have certain thoughts or opinions. No one here has said that people or companies are not or should not be able to donate to whomever they wish.

    That does not provide them with immunity from being called out or disagreed with, though.
  • ECM
    avatar
    I was just trying to clarify and address this point.

    "The fact that they donate money to anti-gay groups (about $5m at the last count), including know hate groups and proponents of ex-gay therapy (which has never evr worked), might have something to do with that. Just a wild guess."

    The statement about the "companies should not donate" was a hypothetical and reflective statement. It was meant to provide perspective. I wasn't trying to say that's what people were saying.

    True, as anyone that picks a side will almost always be called out by the other. It's a charges topic and people are often miss-understood in their intentions and meanings. XD
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    It is not "irrelevant", because traditional marriage is for monetary reasons and degrading to women, both of which are fairly antagonistic to the christian arguments for traditional marriage.
  • An ExtraordinaryGentleman
    avatar
    One of the groups they donate to is Exodus International, who are proponents of conversion therapy. 99.9% of all conversion therapy patients experience no change in sexuality, and worse, it can create long-term psychological damage.

    That's doing active harm, yes?

    "As for tradition marriage. I am referring to a man and a woman, not what you brought up. Keep it on track and not derail the topic with random versus, or unrelated tangents."

    Unrelated? U wot? You brought out the Bible quotes, honey, I just responded in kind, because I assumed that's what you meant by traditional marriage. That's what everyone refers to when they mean traditional marriage.

    If you don't mean Biblical marriage, how about old-fashioned "traditional" marriage where a man can marry any girl of his choosing, regardless of her age, or indeed his? Or where it wasn't done out of romantic love, but a business arrangement to produce children? That traditional enough for you?

    Or maybe we can go back to segregating off the races and fucking over the Natives some more. It's "tradition", after all. As long as we're doing outdated things in the name of nostalgia, that's alright, then.
  • robm
    avatar
    If Chick-Fil-A takes such a traditional view of marriage why do they have a hyphenated name?
  • satireknight
    Sadly, you are correct. It's considered okay to be bigoted against religions, especially Christian ones, but the merest hint that you aren't pro-gay-marriage (or even just don't care) and suddenly you're an evil frothing fanatical bigot.

    Personally, I think legal marriage should not even truly be called marriage, but that's a rant for another day.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    Oh please, don't try "oh we christiantards are so opressed" bullshit. Christianity dominates North America.

    All the persecution you have is inside your paranoid skulls.
  • sigilensilme
    Legal marriage should just all be called civil unions, and leave religious marriage to religions. That way, anyone could get 'married' legally, and have all of the legal privileges of marriage.

    Then everyone would have a civil union, which would give the tax breaks, and whatever else. Marriage wouldn't be a big deal, because it would just be a religious term, meaning it wouldn't have anything to go with the government, or laws or anything.

    Besides, if we are breaking away from 'traditional marriage', we might as well give it a new name and stop all the bickering about it.
  • Furluge
    avatar
    Actually you could pirate waffle fries. But really, is it worth the trouble to get all those boats and crew together just to hijack a shipment of the things when you can just buy them in the drive-through? :D
  • Lim  - Buick, HO!
    Hijack them at the drive thru. Raise a flag on your antenna and board that Camry!
  • Furluge
    avatar
    Arr mateys! Batten down the powered windows, hoist the antenna and set course to starboard! There be a Ford Crown Vic land yacht just off our bow waiting for the plundering, and then it's off to ye olde college where thar be fat pipes o' bandwidth! Now set yer ipods to a jaunty sea shanty and draw yer cutlasses, it's time for a piratein' me boyos!!
  • ender1200
    avatar
    I read ender's game at 7th grade. I chose my online nickname "ender" becouse of this book (manny years ago and now i just continiue with it). I never cared to look for mr.cards political and religius opinions (i havent read any book of his in years) so this bigotted opinion on gays of his is acomplete suprise to me.

    I don't think a book should be judged by an opinion of the author unless this opinion is part of the book. And as long as he dosen't reguraly donate mony to anty gay organizations i can't see what's the harm in paying for those books either.
  • Bouncing Boy
    "And as long as he dosen't reguraly donate mony to anty gay organizations i can't see what's the harm in paying for those books either."

    That's the thing, not only does he regularly donate money to anti-gay organizations, he has stated that some of the profits from his books go to anti-gay legislation.

    This is why I won't buy his books, because I don't want my money going to that.

    Also, to those who say that people who boycott Card's books or boycott Chik-Fil-A are as intolerant of Christians as those who want to pass anti-gay legislation are of homosexuality, I just want to point out that we don't want to pass legislation restricting the rights of Christians.

    If you want to compare us to One Million Moms boycotting JC Penny or Oreos, that's fine. It's a hell of a lot more accurate, and while I disagree with the One Million Moms, I think they have a right to buy or not buy whatever they want, just as we do.
  • satireknight
    Except there are indeed plenty of people who would LOVE to restrict the rights of Christians, including people in favor of gay rights. Some have said so explicitly. Sure, they don't speak for everyone, but neither do the Westboro Baptists.

    And honestly, you can't cherry pick that either. Bigotry is bigotry. Whether you actively try to restrict someone else's rights doesn't make a difference in whether you are full of hatred, and whether you see someone else as less of a person because you hate them.
  • Bouncing Boy
    Okay, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I try not to hate. It feels terrible and it accomplishes nothing. I don't hate Orson Scott Card, the One Million Moms, the owners of Chik-Fil-A, or even the Westboro Babtists. I also don't see them as less of a person.

    I don't support gay rights because of hate, I support it because I don't believe in restricting anyone's rights as long as what they're doing isn't hurting anyone. I like to think that the majority of the people in support of gay rights feel the same way I do. I know not everyone does, but sometimes that's just the way it goes.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    So you consider opressing other people a christian right.

    If so, then you christians should totally be opressed.
  • sigilensilme
    Agreed that bigotry is a double edged blade. I've known several people who were for gay rights specifically because they didn't like Christians. Therefore, they joined the side opposing 'general' Christians. Likewise, I've also talked to non-Christians who oppose gay rights because they got annoyed at all of the propaganda, and people who fight for gay rights being obnoxious toward people who aren't for gay rights. But no matter what the argument is, extremists on both sides are bigots, or they will become bigots. A lot of people seem to think that bigotry only applies to the people who think differently than themselves.

    Also, I know this wasn't mentioned in your post, but the term 'homophobic' is kind of stupid. homophobia implies that people are afraid of homosexuals. most of the time, that is incorrect. They just don't approve of homosexual activities, and they think it's wrong. Not the same thing. That word always bugs me. xD I don't really care one way of the other. Just get the terminology correct. Semantics and terminology are more important than most people realize.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

BB: Stan Lee's Top 10 Awesome

Watch Video

Brad: Anime Midwest Panel

Watch Video

Lupa: BW - We Need a Vacation

Watch Video

Lotus: Galerians Parts 3-4

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Furniture & Meat

Watch Video

Nash: Serial Pooper

Watch Video

Smarty: DAH - ChaosD1

Watch Video

Shaun K: P4GA & Anachronauts

Watch Video

Brad: Hercules & Lucy

Watch Video

Vangelus: Dinobots Grimlock

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Food Chain

Watch Video

Rap Critic: Ridin

Watch Video

Brad: TR - Infringment

Watch Video

NChick: BYOA - S2E8

Watch Video

Paw: QfG4 Parts 5-6

Watch Video

Tom: Beneath the PotA P3

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Breezy

Watch Video

Brad: Babe Ruth Story

Watch Video

Making of NC: Bloodrayne

Watch Video

Vangelus: Batman Arkham City

Watch Video

Word Funk: Serious Dudes

Watch Video

WMR: The Evil Cat

Watch Video

Nerd: Ep 121 - Voice Acting

Watch Video

Lotus: Galerians P1-2

Watch Video

MikeJ: When in Rome

Watch Video

Diamanda: Rock & Rule

Watch Video

Leon: Four Lions

Watch Video

Phelous: Beauty & the Beast P1

Watch Video

Shaun K: One Piece OWR

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Sad Face

Watch Video

NC: WYKNA - Hot Fuzz

Watch Video

Todd: Informer by Snow

Watch Video

MarzGurl: AT of The Guyver P1

Watch Video

Brad: Planes: Fire & Rescue

Watch Video

Korra: Old Wounds &

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (142)
Sports (264)
News (279)
Book Reviews (549)
Funny (574)
Top # Lists (737)
Animation (919)
Wrestling (986)
Movies (1052)
Anime (1067)
Thoughts (1146)
Comics (1190)
Misc Reviews (1281)
Music (1391)
Video Reviews (1930)
Film Review (2739)
Uncategorized (4008)
Video Games (5144)
Old Blogs (15314)