He made "one remark that could be interpreted as homophobic"?

Here, I'll link you directly to an essay that Card published in 1990 (when he was 39 years old). It is entitled, "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality."

Card prefaces the essay by explaining that anyone using it to attack him as a homophobe clearly doesn't understand the context of the essay, specifically, a 1986 Georgia law prohibiting sodomy in the privacy of one's own home being constitutional. Additionally, he attempts to ground his essay in the beliefs of the Mormon Church, believing that this will shroud him a veil of protection for his own beliefs because he's just reiterating those of the church he frequents and supports.

But Card has significant problematic opinions in his essay. I will point out a few for reference:

>(Par. 1) I did learn that for most of [the homosexual community,] their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex.
>
>(Par. 2) And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such "tolerance" would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.

See, because Card fundamentally believes that partaking in homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts is a sin, one cannot both be a follower of the Mormon church and someone who partakes in homosexual acts. He views the two as separate communities, and believes that someone who is homosexual can only adhere to one.

Notice how, throughout the entire essay, he avoids mentioning how one can easily be both heterosexual and a follower of the Mormon church. Basically, if you are male, it's completely fine to date women and have sex with your wife as much as you want, but if you are gay, you cannot date men nor get married to another man nor have sex with another man and still be a member of the church.

>(Par. 4) The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.

Here, Card tries to point out that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetically ingrained in an individual since birth--what matters is whether or not they 'act' on it. He tries to further explain that, much like when he was a 15-year old teenager, he also had urges to have sex, but was encouraged to fight against those urges. He explains that youth are forgiven for their transgressions, but that adults are not (and should not) be forgiven for failing to resist these urges (unless otherwise happily married).

>(Par. 5)Are we somehow cruel and overdomineering when we teach young men and young women that their lives will be better and happier if they have no memory of sexual intercourse with others to deal with when they finally are married? On the contrary, we would be heartless and cruel if we did not.

It's fine if we teach young men and women not to have sex until they are married, Card explains. Just so long as, when they grow up and finally get married, they are one man and one woman, and not two men or two women (or two LGBTQ+).

>(2008 article) No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

And in 2008, Card published an article that gay marriage marked "the end of democracy in America." See, as long as homosexuals never act on their attraction to members of the same sex, and they follow all the ideals of the church, and if they choose to marry, they only do so to someone of the opposite sex, then that's fine!

Sorry, Card can try and hide behind the Church's beliefs in order to shield himself from the outcry of bigotry thrust upon him, but it's quite evident that his personal opinion is that homosexuals are acceptable in society so long as they never act on their attractions (ever) and, should they choose to get married, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. The man believed that gay marriage ruined democracy in his country for Christ's sake.