And I recall a homosexual love scene in Orson Scott Card's Songmaster. I also recall it ended very badly.
And I recall a homosexual love scene in Orson Scott Card's Songmaster. I also recall it ended very badly.
Given he's extremely homophobic, and even had a part in those 'the Storm is coming' ads, its not really surprising in his case.
Bdoomed, that pic doesn't seem to add anything to the thread.eh, this thread made me think of Twilight. sorryness
...i'm not sure what stePH's position is.
Can someone please define for me exactly what it means to be homophobic? What is the criteria? From what I see the term is used as a weapon against anyone who does not fall lock step in the the gay rights political agenda. I get the sense that it's a "you're either with us or against us" mentality."Fall lock step in the gay rights political agenda"? What's your perception of "the gay rights political agenda"? As far as I can tell, it's just to end the marginalizing and persecution of homosexuals in our society. The kind of people who killed Matthew Shepard still walk among us, and that's only the most extreme form of persecution. I don't see how anybody is harmed by allowing gays to enter the same kind of marriages that hetero couples can, and nobody's managed to explain it to me without falling back on religious beliefs.
yeah, my best friend came out almost a year ago... and... yeah they dont have "an agenda"... it's really just "hey can we get married too?" and "hey can you stop hating us so much?"...i'm not sure what stePH's position is.
My position was to put up a thread with a title similar to an existing one; it's just something I do when the mood strikes me. :)
With that said, however ...Can someone please define for me exactly what it means to be homophobic? What is the criteria? From what I see the term is used as a weapon against anyone who does not fall lock step in the the gay rights political agenda. I get the sense that it's a "you're either with us or against us" mentality."Fall lock step in the gay rights political agenda"? What's your perception of "the gay rights political agenda"? As far as I can tell, it's just to end the marginalizing and persecution of homosexuals in our society. The kind of people who killed Matthew Shepard still walk among us, and that's only the most extreme form of persecution. I don't see how anybody is harmed by allowing gays to enter the same kind of marriages that hetero couples can, and nobody's managed to explain it to me without falling back on religious beliefs.
Can someone please define for me exactly what it means to be homophobic? What is the criteria?[...]
Mind you, no social conservative has never successfully persuaded me that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other.because there is no logical reason besides religion, which should not be allowed to play a part in legal matters.
You're not homophobic if you don't like gay people.
You're not homophobic if you don't like gay people.
You're not homophobic if you don't like gay people.
No, you're just a bigoted a**hole.
Really, one ought to talk more about racist/sexist/whateverist behaviors rather than people. It's possible to do something offensive without meaning it or even realizing it, or even when trying to HELP. Consider, for instance, the rather sad situation of ex-gay ministry, which tries to "cure" its patients of being gay. Many members are formerly-practicing homosexuals who truly believe they've found a better, purer, and cleaner way to live.
You're not homophobic if you don't like gay people.
No, you're just a bigoted a**hole.
To be fair, if one believes that homosexuality is a learned behavior rather than an innate tendency shaped by a variety of inputs, and if one believes in a religion which has specific or general strictures against homosexual behavior, it is possible to truly believe that those who have gay sex are doing something wrong, something they should be fighting to resist, just like sex outside of whatever cultural structure you believe in might be equally wrong. In that case, it is quite possible to view gay people as those indulging a vice and thus not people you want to associate with. I think this view is mistaken, but it is certainly possible to dislike "gayness" without being a bigot per se.
Comparisons to racism break down if one side doesn't believe that homosexuality is an actual expression of human sexuality, but is instead a behavior, a choice. Society often (and quite rightly) disapproves of individual choices when they are harmful to people (even to those who practice them; suicide is often outlawed and regularly sees intervention, for instance; to the eyes of the sort of person I'm describing, homosexuality seems an aberrant psychological problem akin to the severe depression that drives someone to injure themselves, and equally worthy both of disapproval and laws meant to restrain it.)
Really, one ought to talk more about racist/sexist/whateverist behaviors rather than people. It's possible to do something offensive without meaning it or even realizing it, or even when trying to HELP. Consider, for instance, the rather sad situation of ex-gay ministry, which tries to "cure" its patients of being gay. Many members are formerly-practicing homosexuals who truly believe they've found a better, purer, and cleaner way to live. While I would classify their actions as inappropriate and intrusive (just like I'd disapprove of a group that tried to, say, "cure" monogamy in happily-married individuals), I have a hard time calling them "bigoted assholes."
Really, one ought to talk more about racist/sexist/whateverist behaviors rather than people. It's possible to do something offensive without meaning it or even realizing it, or even when trying to HELP. Consider, for instance, the rather sad situation of ex-gay ministry, which tries to "cure" its patients of being gay. Many members are formerly-practicing homosexuals who truly believe they've found a better, purer, and cleaner way to live. While I would classify their actions as inappropriate and intrusive (just like I'd disapprove of a group that tried to, say, "cure" monogamy in happily-married individuals), I have a hard time calling them "bigoted assholes."
"Fall lock step in the gay rights political agenda"? What's your perception of "the gay rights political agenda"? As far as I can tell, it's just to end the marginalizing and persecution of homosexuals in our society. The kind of people who killed Matthew Shepard still walk among us, and that's only the most extreme form of persecution. I don't see how anybody is harmed by allowing gays to enter the same kind of marriages that hetero couples can, and nobody's managed to explain it to me without falling back on religious beliefs.
I think any derogatory/confrontational/dismissive approach is destined to fail. If you want to fight, you use words like "bigot" or "ignorant" (or "lockstep with the Gay Rights agenda.") If one is really seeking to educate and enlighten, then approaching everyone with your rose-colored glasses on is the way to go. Assume goodwill and good intent. Dismissing an entire group as "bigots" or "ignorant" inherently removes them from the discussion and causes anyone who has differing views from yours to look upon you as an opponent.
I'm just trying to live according to what I feel is right. Is it going to get to the point where saying that I believe homosexuality is against the will of God will be considered hate speech. That's where I get the feeling of "unless you agree with us completely, you are the enemy".
as for thread split? I dunno, I'll leave it up to someone else to decide whether or not to split it. Personally I think what could be said about SF homophobia/gay/opinion has been said (but I really have no idea about the subject) and this thread has kinda sprouted a new life of it's own, sooo I'm fine with letting it play out, but if Heradel or Ben or someone thinks differently, by all means split the thread.
I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? :P) ... but as I said before, I started the thread for frivolous reasons anyway. By all means move it to Gallimaufry if it's no longer relevant to SF.
I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? :P) ... but as I said before, I started the thread for frivolous reasons anyway. By all means move it to Gallimaufry if it's no longer relevant to SF.So to bring thread on topic is Torchwood Homophobic or Champion for gay rights based especially on season 3. With Ianto trying to hide his relationship with Jack from his family. Was that embarassment at being thought gay, wanting to avoid them acting bigotted towards him, or what? I would have said Torchwood was Champion for gay rights before season 3, but now I am not so sure.
I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? :P) ... but as I said before, I started the thread for frivolous reasons anyway. By all means move it to Gallimaufry if it's no longer relevant to SF.So to bring thread on topic is Torchwood Homophobic or Champion for gay rights based especially on season 3. With Ianto trying to hide his relationship with Jack from his family. Was that embarassment at being thought gay, wanting to avoid them acting bigotted towards him, or what? I would have said Torchwood was Champion for gay rights before season 3, but now I am not so sure.
I think that's just being realistic. There are a lot of gay folks that have families that wouldn't really understand, or the gay children have really strained relations because the parent's don't accept them being gay. Being pro-gay doesn't mean being anti-reality in these cases. Plus, Russell T. Davies is gay, and the vast preponderance of Torchwood, his run of Doctor Who, and Queer as Folk has been really gay friendly or just really gay.
what, nobody mentioned Torchwood?
Fortunately, we don't have to wonder or debate about this any more. It turns out that SF is exclusively the sphere of straight men, and we nasty gays (and women) are mean-spiritedly trying to ruin it for everyone else:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/
Which we discussed here (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3012.0), which lead to StePH creating this thread apparently as a form of protest for the original discussion,...
Fortunately, we don't have to wonder or debate about this any more. It turns out that SF is exclusively the sphere of straight men, and we nasty gays (and women) are mean-spiritedly trying to ruin it for everyone else:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/
Wow. The worst thing about the site is how the work in Marvin Minsky - one of the leading figures in AI - to make it appear that they have support from a respectable source to their insane mysogynistic rambling. And while I didn't bother reading much of the article you linked to - it's just too moronic - I did make a point of checking the Minsky quotes he cites, and they are taken entirely out of context and have nothing to do with anti-woman rants.
Which we discussed here (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3012.0), which lead to StePH creating this thread apparently as a form of protest for the original discussion,...
RZZZZ! Sorry, Heradel, but thank you for playing! Our lovely parting gifts include a year's supply of D'artagnan's Onion Rings, Ronco's Bondage-in-a-Bottle, it won't chip, it won't slip, It won't crack, it won't peel, it won't fade, and a new, new, absolutely brand new, and of course but also, A NEW CAR! :P
As I said earlier, this thread exists solely because I had a whim to mimic another thread. It's just something I do.
Remember "The Strangeness of Kinders" (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=2937.0), or even farther back, "Phoney Yumminess" (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=1447.0)?
Wow. The worst thing about the site is how the work in Marvin Minsky - one of the leading figures in AI - to make it appear that they have support from a respectable source to their insane mysogynistic rambling. And while I didn't bother reading much of the article you linked to - it's just too moronic - I did make a point of checking the Minsky quotes he cites, and they are taken entirely out of context and have nothing to do with anti-woman rants.
You should check out Dirk "I'm the Original and Genuine Starbuck" Benedict's sour grapes essay (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dbenedict/2009/01/19/lt-starbuck-lost-in-castration/) that the linked article links to. The sheer ass-hattery of it is awesome to behold. :o ::)
...the topic is quite a heavy one to be entered into so lightly, and is also one that has led to several flamewars and locked threads in the history of the forums, though not recently.
And I recall a homosexual love scene in Orson Scott Card's Songmaster. I also recall it ended very badly.
Card does not consider his views homophobic, stating he does not advocate "harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex,"...
And I recall a homosexual love scene in Orson Scott Card's Songmaster. I also recall it ended very badly.
Orson Scott Card is EXTREMELY homophobic, and so its not surprising he made a gay romance end badly
P.S., how does one do that black-on-black spoiler text?Like this.
[glow=black,2,300]]Like this.[/glow]
P.S., how does one do that black-on-black spoiler text?Like this.
Er,Code: [Select][glow=black,2,300]]Like this.[/glow]
P.S., how does one do that black-on-black spoiler text?Like this.
Er,Code: [Select][glow=black,2,300]]Like this.[/glow]
Maybe it is due to IE, my resolution, or my computer's super powers, but I can still read the text everybody seems to hiding. I used to see the black out effect, but for the last several weeks, I have been able to read the "blacked out" text. I just assumed people were doing it wrong, but this code looks right.
Yeah, I looked at it in Safari and it blacked out just fine.Oh, actually, I think that might be the right, er, intended rendering. The other browsers are adhering to web "standards" which don't let you render text in quite that way, so it comes up as a black box.
Here is what it looks like in IE:
(http://pics.livejournal.com/marshaldillon/pic/00095rtg)
Okay, I have derailed this thread enough.
Topic: Is Science Fiction Gay or is it Homophobic?
I'm sorry, but could there be a dumber question? ::)
I can't relate to the omnisexual/pansexual trend either, and I suspect it's because most omnisexual/pansexual characters are written by women whose sexuality is leaning towards the straight side of the spectrum. Women who think, "Hey, it might be fun to have sex with another woman," but who have never truly had feelings for a girl and for some reason are incapable of imagining it.