Forgot your password?
Movies Sci-Fi

Movie Review: Ender's Game 732

Posted by Soulskill
from the enemy's-gate-is-down dept.
Ender's Game is the quintessential classic military sci-fi book. It ranks near the top of virtually every list of good sci-fi novels. When Hollywood decided to finally go forward with a movie adaptation, the initial reaction from most fans was one of skepticism. (After all, we saw what they did to I, Robot.) But there was reason to hope, as well, because Ender's Game is more action-friendly than many sci-fi stories, and the filmmakers had a big budget with which to make it. The movie was finally released last week; read on for our review. In short: the film tries too hard to straddle the line between assuming viewers are familiar with the details and bringing new viewers up to speed. The cuts to the story were both too much and not enough. It left us with only brief glimpses at too many characters, and introduced themes without fleshing them out enough to be interesting.

Note: in the lead-up to this film's release, a boycott was organized in response to Orson Scott Card's efforts as an anti-gay-marriage activist. If you find your desire to see one of your favorite stories clashing with a desire not to support Card's political views, an organization called the Equality Initiative has offered an alternative. They suggest going to see the movie, if you want, and then simply donating the ticket price to any of several related charities.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: they cut a lot from the novel. Really, quite a lot. As a book, Ender's Game is not terribly long, and it's a very quick read. That makes it sound ideal for a movie interpretation at first blush. But part of the reason it's such a quick read is that it's dense with plot, character development, and internal narratives. The movie is dense as well, but mostly with events. What makes the book great is not so much what the characters do, but why they do it and how. So while the movie conveys the majority of what happened in the book, it fails to convey the reasons behind the facts. I don't know that they could have done any better within a two-hour time limit, but it leaves us with a question: is this film for people who have read the book, or for people who haven't?

Since the book has been out since 1985, I'm going to assume most of you are familiar with the story. I won't reveal the major plot twists, but minor and intermediate spoilers may follow. If you aren't familiar with it, then here's the bottom line: go read the book! It's good.

Right from the beginning we see how deep the cuts go. Central to Ender's time at home is the whirlwind of conflicting emotions running through him about his monitor, his family, and his status as a Third. The film rushes through these, hitting each only briefly enough to show the viewer that there exists something deeper. Ender mentions being a Third, but doesn't explain what a Third is, or why it's a point of shame and embarrassment. They introduce Peter, but fail to show that their relationship is more complex than your typical sibling rivalry. In the book, Peter is brilliant, sadistic, intuitive, and a hell of an actor when adults are around. In the movie, he's just a jerk for a few seconds before Ender rockets off toward the plot.

Even Ender's early fight with Stilson loses much of its impact. In the book, it really isn't much of a fight; Ender immediately has Stilson at his mercy. The point of the scene was to show Ender's deliberate use of brutality and intimidation to secure safety from the larger group of enemies. He's reluctant, but not hesitant. In the movie, this is distilled down to a command for Stilson to "stay down" before the fight has concluded and a shaky warning to the others.

So, even just 10 minutes into the film, we see the film is not taking the time to illustrate these characters to a new audience. That trend continues: most of the minor characters are cardboard cutouts of their literary counterparts. Bean is somehow in the same initial launch group as Ender, and simply serves as an ally. Peter and Valentine just serve as occasional spurs for Ender's development. (Yes, that means the entire secondary plot was scrapped. I'm not too sad about that; there's no way they could have given it enough time to do it justice. And it was always the least believable thing, for me, in a novel about space battles and insectoid aliens.) Alai makes mention of peace, but he doesn't have a role as a peacemaker. The contrast between his connection with Ender and the constant violence surrounding them is lost. Petra has more interaction with Ender than most, but it has some bizarre romantic overtones.

Well, then, what about the scenery? If the movie is for fans of the book, it should at least be awesome to see expensive CGI of the scenes we imagined in our heads when reading it, right? And it is.. sometimes. The space battle sequences are impressive, and seeing the students fly around in zero-g was neat. But it was also jarring, at times. Take the Battleroom at the school, for example. In my head, it was an approximation of space, with a dark background interrupted only by the simple "stars" and the gates. In the movie, there's an awful lot going on, visually. The walls are windows dominated by a view of Earth. Everything's polished and shiny. The light pistols shoot bright, Star-Wars-like laser bolts that flash dramatically when they hit something. All the ships in the battlefleet look fancy and brand new, instead of hastily constructed and out of date. Ender's interface in command school is far more graphical and pretty than is sensible. It's cool to see, and I suspect viewers who are unfamiliar with the book won't think twice about it. But it's clear that this interpretation is not straining to be as faithful to the book as possible, which is mildly disappointing.

The movie's acting was decent. There won't be any Oscar nominations, but they didn't have a whole lot to work with. As I mentioned earlier, most characters had their subtleties stripped away. Asa Butterfield does a respectable job with Ender, using glances and body language to supplement some of the situations where the story was simplified from an internal narrative. The casting director definitely made the right decision going with kids in their early teens rather than the much-younger ages from the book. Harrison Ford played Graff well enough, but it'd be more accurate to say he played Harrison Ford. If you tend to like his characters, you'll enjoy the role. If not, you might like Viola Davis, who played a surprisingly good Major Anderson. Those two characters were tweaked a bit in order to separate out their conflicting emotions about training Ender, and they pull it off. Ben Kingsley does a fine job in his abbreviated role as Ender's adversarial mentor.

A few other random notes:

  • They gave up the biggest plot twist ahead of time; there were at least two obvious references to what was going to happen. Ender is kept in the dark, but the audience is not, which is too bad for new viewers.
  • The fantasy game was represented pretty well. Like most other plot elements, it was stripped down to its essentials, but I was surprised by how well they integrated it into the story. I was expecting it to be cut altogether.
  • Due to the trimming and simplifying of the story, the movie's dialogue was largely original. It mostly paraphrased the book. However, they occasionally threw in direct quotes from some of the more stylized lines. It happened infrequently enough that it broke immersion.

It's inevitable that a successful book won't fit within the confines of a movie script. We knew this going in. Nevertheless, some adaptations have succeeded by being as faithful as possible to the ideas behind the book. Ender's Game doesn't manage this. Other adaptations have been successful by reimagining the work for a new medium, thus drawing in new fans. Ender's Game doesn't quite manage this, either. It straddles the line, and in doing so, leaves us with a sequence of events that seems entirely arbitrary, when it should instead seem inevitable. If you're thrilled about the possibility of seeing expensive CGI for one of your favorite stories, go see it. Otherwise, give it a pass.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Movie Review: Ender's Game

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Teresita (982888) <badinage1@net z e r o dot net> on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @03:53PM (#45348183) Homepage
    I'm not much interested in Hollywood versions of classic books, ever since Peter Jackson took a book that is much shorter than any of the books in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and stretched it out to what promises to be a trilogy in it's own right. The Will Smith "I, Robot" has almost nothing to do with Asimov's stories. If Hollywood brought the notoriously talky Foundation Trilogy to the screen it would have nine films, be crammed with CGI fleets slamming into one another, the Mule would be more physically intimidating than Sauron and Arkadia Darrell would have bigger tits and ass than Beyonce.
  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crashcy (2839507) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:00PM (#45348267)
    While I disagree with the guy's views, I wonder about the zealotry against him. Did you to see Midnight in Paris? How about The Piano? If you are that concerned with the character of those who benefit from your entertainment consumption, should I take your choice to watch those as an endorsement of child molestation? And if you haven't seen those, give me any list of 20 movies you like, I'm sure I could find others.
  • by rotor (82928) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:11PM (#45348405) Homepage

    I thoroughly enjoyed the movie version of Ender's Game, but agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer's take on what succeeded and what failed. In fact, I probably enjoyed it so much because I expected much less. The glaring failures were all necessary to make a successful movie, but they still managed to indicate the most important philosophical points. Yes, Graff was harder than in the book (and Anderson's softness was used to make up for this), Bean was introduced too early and wasn't adversarial at first like he should have been, and what were they thinking with the romantic overtones with Petra... But we know why Ender did what he did and how it affected him, and that didn't change from the book.

    My one sadness about this movie is that it didn't inspire my son to read the book (he started it last year, read the first paragraph of Graff's pre-chapter conversation, and decided he didn't want to read it). But at least my copy is now on loan to one of his friends who was inspired to read it.

  • Re:no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by spike hay (534165) <> on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:12PM (#45348423) Homepage

    Wow, you're a fucking blowhard.

    Gay teens make up around 40% or more of homeless youth, usually because their parents kick them out for being gay. They are discriminated against at many homeless shelters by both staff and other homeless.

  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by khasim (1285) <> on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:14PM (#45348447)

    It had great potential back when it was written. But now the training "games" that Ender goes through cannot have the same impact.


    It's one thing to realize that the little green dots you've been sending to fight the little red dots are really ships with people on them. And you've been ordering them to their deaths and getting petulant about it because you had to get up early. It's entirely different when the dots are now fully rendered ships.

    Hold it! How are you ordering them to their deaths? It's already been established that FTL does not exist in this universe. Inter-stellar operations are, effectively, suicide missions because by the time you return everyone you left behind will be dead. So FTL does not exist for ships but it does exist for communications. And that had to be hidden from everyone? Why? Why not let the families of the people on the ships talk to them?

    It had to be hidden in order to preserve the ending and the characterization. But it had to exist to provide the ending.

  • Re:overrated, anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thegreatemu (1457577) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:15PM (#45348457)

    You completely missed the point of the book if that's what you got. What made Ender the supreme commander wasn't his intelligence; he was brilliant, but not significantly more so than many of the other kids. Ender's gift was his empathy: what allowed him to overcome his foes was exactly that he DIDN'T see them as less than human, but that he respected, maybe even loved his adversaries, even as he set up to destroy them.

    I won't argue about the rest of the series though

  • Re:overrated, anyway (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:20PM (#45348493) Homepage

    You must have gotten the book mixed up with another book. But it has been 30 years since the 1980s so that makes sense. Not sure where you got the revenge thing or the sub-human thing.

    Ender's Game is about a reluctant hero, torn from his family and forced into the military where they required him to make brutal decisions to survive. He succeeds over his rivals and predecessors because his humanity made him a better leader. The irony of the story, and Ender's torment through the remaining books, is that he was seen as a killer when he, in fact, was not.

  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:21PM (#45348507) Journal

    I agree with you on I, Robot, but there was a method to Jackson's madness in The Hobbit.

    As the story goes, Way back when, Tolkien decided to write a sequel to The Hobbit, and the sequel "got away from him" and became a lot longer and darker and more adult than the first, children's story. Years later, Tolkien wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the same adult tone as Lord of the Rings, rework some of the inconsistencies, and fold it into the same overall story arc. He apparently spent a lot of time on this. Some of his notes are in the appendices of Return of the King. Tolkien died before he could complete it.

    His son Christopher completed the story, renamed "The Quest for Erebor", posthumously.

    You'll notice, perhaps, that Thorin called their journey "The Quest for Erebor" in the first Hobbit movie.

    But there are legal tangles. Tolkien sold the rights to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, which eventually came into Jackson's hands, but not any of the materials he had written since, and the Tolkien estate (read: Christopher Tolkien) has refused to consider selling the rights to any other Tolkien works. So Jackson has access to The Hobbit, and he has access to parts of the story that are in Return of the King. He wanted to do The Quest for Erebor (for whatever reason, imagine dollar signs if that works for you) as two films (later three) but couldn't get the rights to Tolkien's other notes on the rewrite, because Christopher Tolkien wouldn't deal. So basically, they did what they could with the materials they owned, and basically pulled the rest of the story out of their collective ass.

    So, how well or ill the final product was, is as always up to the viewer to decide. But my POINT is, the INTENTION was to tell the larger story that the author had imagined it becoming. As described in the appendices of Return of the King (which are for the most part worth reading) a very key part of the War of the Ring, and Gandalf's own personal goals, were: (a) the elimination of Smaug, (b) the reestablishment of a dwarf stronghold under the mountain, and (c) driving the necromancer out of mirkwood. One could say that a side goal was to get the Mirkwood elves engaged for the coming war. These are all important preludes to the War of the Ring.

    Sorry to be so long winded, but the point is, there is actually an author-inspired reason to make The Hobbit a trilogy, although I'm sure money had a lot to do with it also.

    But don't bother asking these question in rec.arts.tolkien. They hate hate HATE Jackson over there, and any discussion of the movies rapidly gets incoherent.

    Back on topic, I remember all the furor on Usenet back in the eighties when Ender's Game first came out, (you can probably still find it in the Google Groups archives) but never got around to actually reading the books. I really liked the film, but I went in being familiar with some of the story's plot points from reading the discussions all those years ago. I can't speak to how someone who had never heard of it might like it, EXCEPT, my daughter, who had never heard of the story, went in cold and really really liked it. She considers the film a keeper. To put this in perspective, she hated Avatar.

  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <(dadinportland) (at) (> on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:27PM (#45348575) Homepage Journal

    I don't want Christopher's money grabbing bastardization. I wanted the Hobbit. A fun story with Epic bits about a hobbit./
    Not Oakenshield's really, really, really serious adventures about really really serious stuff with serious people who seriously want to be serious.

    Plus the movie had bits that were outright stupid.

    The Ending of Enders is pretty lame to anyone with a lot of reading experience. It's great for kids; which then remember it with overly found memories of their past.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @04:43PM (#45348767)

    Ok, I've got to stop you there. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy basically had nothing to do with the books, there's no way it could. But it WAS funny... I was crying with laughter in different parts of that movie. Was it an accurate rendition of the book? No... but even my wife, who'd never read the books and hates that sort of thing thought it was hilarious.

  • by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @05:17PM (#45349227)

    You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.

    What new word would you like to be used for people who are only effectively but not technically homophobes due to the source of their desire for oppression? I'd consider using it, even though it would be a useless distinction.

    I'm so tired of this shit. I really don't give a damn if someone is gay, lesbian, androgynous, a trans-testicle (yes, that's a joke, get over it) or whatever. I simply don't care. That doesn't mean I have to "embrace" it, or even care about it. And that doesn't make me "homophobic". What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me. Go about your business and shut the fuck up. I'm a heterosexual male, always have been, most likely always will be. When I was younger, I wondered what the hell would make guy attracted to another, but just never understood it and really don't care. I've had and have gay/lesbian friends, and most of them are not ashamed of it (not that they should be), but they don't feel the need to make everyone around them celebrate what they do with their genitals. If Mr. Card feels the way he does, good for him. It's a free country (less so recently). I wish he'd not run his mouth on the subject either. But if we're supposed to respect each other feelings, then it's a two way street. He can have his beliefs and should be able to state them, without persecution, just the same as those who disagree with him.

    I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest? It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem? Or are you polygaphobic? Or incestaphobic? Why is LGBT where the limit should be and no further? Again, it's not my thing, but I honestly don't care if people want to be in a polygamous marriage. If that makes them happy, great. But I don't want to hear about how I have to support it or something's wrong with me.

    I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception. I really don't know why anyone feels the need to do so. Do what makes you happy and don't tell me I have to agree with you. I don't, but I also don't feel I should be called names for it either.

    I read Ender's Game (actually I think I read the short first) and Speaker for the Dead not long after they were released, then again when when the sequal was released (I don't remember what the name was) and recall enjoying them. So I will see this movie. If I have time, it will be in at a theater. If not, then I will buy it, probably, on Bluray. If this makes me homophobic, then you need to seek help.

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @05:22PM (#45349289) Journal

    I hate reviews by people who read the book. Even if they mostly followed the spirit of the book, including major "WOW" moments, people still get bogged down bitching about this or that missing or changed detail.

    I saw The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo first (US version), and it was awesome. And the book was, too. I am holding off reading the second book until the movie because you can only see the story first once, and I want that to be the movie.

    Dune is perhaps a better example. I saw that as the movie first (Picard version, not tv one) and it was magnificent. It had tremendous, epic scope and science fiction feel. The only bad part were minor things like the worms with people riding looked cheap (otherwise worm scenes were grand) and the Emperor being involved gunning at the end seemed stupid and small as an operation.

    Later read the whole series, felt no rage at differences.

    A movie is something like 50 pages of a book -- a lot must be consolidated and eliminated or glossed over, while still maintaining the feel and "WOW" moments that made the book stand out.

    Oh Baron Harkonen, what a magnificent fucking pig you were!

  • Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bsane (148894) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @05:36PM (#45349491)

    Yeah, I don't get the hate for I, Robot movie... their wasn't a coherent story in the first place. Just a bunch of related shorts, none of which were long enough for a movie.

    The movie took one of Asimov's later realizations as its main point: eventually the 3 laws go wrong. If they're rigid laws and they're smart enough robots, then you get the 0th law and they protect humanity at the expense of the individual. If they're flexible they see themselves as the greater good and the expense of humanity. Asimov wrote both ways.

  • by Meditato (1613545) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @05:45PM (#45349625)

    I actually didn't see any romantic overtones with Petra that didn't occur in the book. Rather it's that Orson Scott Card is very bad at portraying platonic love in a way that doesn't look creepy in our society. It's similar to how Frodo and Sam would look completely homosexual if that relationship was put directly into the movie without any sort of translation.

    Petra was meant to be Valentine away from Valentine, a mother or sister figure, I think. That's how it came across in the books and that's how it came across (but a bit too directly, as I said) in the movie. Just my opinion.

  • by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @07:46PM (#45351049)

    Well it was, until we found out that the author of this scifi piece was a raging asshole. Now Ender's Game is about a homophobe who wrote a book about war against an alien species... and he's come face-first into a culture war that's been brewing for a long time.

    No, it's not. I can understand the desire not to support the works of a still living author who spends his money on political views that are offensive to your own or, worse, in hostile opposition to your own life, but that does not excuse letting your dislike for an author's, an artist's, or an actor's personal views taint your understanding of their work.

    "Ender's Game" has nothing to do with homosexuality or even any sexuality at all; all the characters are children. The closest it got to the current culture wars was portraying population control as an evil act from the perspective of a religion that opposes birth control. It is still an excellent book worth reading, and its quality is independent of the author's other views.

    There are very few authors who wrote 50 years ago that would have supported gay rights. There are very few authors who wrote 100 years ago that would support interracial marriage. Does that make their works all about homophobia and racism? No. No more than it makes Card's works all about hatred of gays; if anything, Ender's role as the Speaker for the Dead is one that embraces tolerance and understanding of those different from you.

    You can't spend your life hating the ignorant, and if you let your own anger over a person's beliefs cloud their works and other words, then you're no better than the very bigots you disdain.

  • Re:overrated, anyway (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fwipp (1473271) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @08:00PM (#45351181)

    There's an article here [] that, once you get past the deliberately inflammatory intro, makes a heck of a lot of sense.

    Ender's Game makes way more sense when you read it as a combination of nerd-wish-fulfillment and some weird-ass militant Jesus propaganda. He (and only he) can empathize with the people who are killed - he loves them so much, that he must destroy them. When he kills other children, it's because of his wonderful rationality - but it's okay, because he didn't _mean_ to, and besides, he's really, really sorry. He "sacrifices" himself with self-imposed exile at the end of the novel, ending up spreading his philosophy throughout the cosmos.

    Ender is an endlessly-suffering figure, targeted for (what else) his greatness. He's a "Mary Sue" character through and through.

    (It's also interesting to think about the imagined persecution of straight white christian (mormon in this case) men, and how it relates to Ender, whom everyone is necessarily against).

  • by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @09:06PM (#45351889)

    I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest?

    I think most issues with incest, aside from the whole genetic defects thing, come from issues of consent. That is, it might not be possible to give informed consent at a certain age, which is how incest normally seems to manifest itself.

    I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?

    I can't say I've known many couples like this. Actually I knew exactly one couple who were first cousins. They were in their late twenties when they "got together" for the first time. They also didn't make big deal of it, in fact they were scared to death to let anyone know. It struck me as a little weird, but they seemed happy enough, so it's not my place to judge them.

    It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?

    Gays and lesbians make up a small fraction of the planet's population, having siblings who want to marry make up a much much smaller fraction, and the intersection of those two circles seems to me like it'd be infinitesimally small. IE, I don't worry about it either way.

    Oh? So they don't matter to you because there are not enough of them? Just what is the threshold to become significant? Why is the number of gay and lesbian people enough to worry about? You yourself stated that they "make up a small fraction of the planet's population" Perhaps Mr. Card feels that there are not a significant enough number of gay and lesbian people to justify their rights. Just as you seem to feel that there are not enough incestuous gay and lesbian couples. Should I jump up and down and proclaim you homophobic? Incestophobic?

    Or are you polygaphobic?

    I'd be against polygamy just because the legal issues are too complex to wrangle out. Two-partner marriage issues are complex enough, I'm not sure that we -can- put together a fair legal framework for polygamic marriage.

    So it's legally too inconvenient for you to want to address these peoples rights to love who they want? I'm pretty sure I've heard this argument before. All you need to do now is proclaim it will be the undoing of our society/country/way of life and you sound no better than the people who are trying to suppress the LGBT people of the world.

    See how silly this becomes?

  • Re:overrated, anyway (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @11:07PM (#45352583)

    I disagree. Ender was constantly analyzing his performance as an army commander and looking for ways to do it better. Even before he became a commander, he was analyzing his own commanders' actions and resolving to remember them so he didn't repeat their mistakes.

    Ender was driven by understanding and competence. And he wanted to promote understanding and competence in those he led. When Bonzo or Rose the Nose did something stupid that blocked him becoming more competent, he considered that idiotic. Even before he was made a commander, he was holding practice sessions helping himself and anyone else who wanted to become better at the game. He was making improvements in the way the game was played until the day he graduated.

  • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:58AM (#45353209)

    If we have free will, then God can't complain about the outcome. If we don't, then it screwed up in our creation. Which is it?

    It's analogous to a father and son going out for a jog and the father offering to remove the rock that the kid had put into his running shoes since having it there would make it impossible for him to keep up. The dad's not complaining, he's just pointing out the problem and offering a solution so that the kid can join him. The kid is free to leave the rock there and try running anyway, but he won't be able to keep up.

    Similarly, it's not a case of God complaining, so much as it's a case of God pointing out something (a sin) that is coming between you and him so that corrections can be made. He does the same thing with lying, stealing, killing, etc.. As the previous poster said, hate doesn't have to enter into any of that. Just as I hold no particular ill will towards sinners or other varieties, I see absolutely no reason to hold any ill will towards homosexuals. They're sinners. So am I. So are we all. I got over that fact a long time ago, but that doesn't change that sin is still a problem impacting us and our relationship with God. If you're okay with the rock in your shoe, I'm not gonna do anything about it. That's between God and you.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst