Author Topic: Is Science Fiction Gay or is it Homophobic? (Read 32346 times)

Talia · **Reply #25 on:** October 31, 2009, 05:51:10 AM

Well, the problem with the theft comparison is theft is something that affects other people. It involves the act of perpetrating a wrong against another unwilling individual.

Whereas disaproving of homosexuality is basically like saying its OK to treat another person poorly because they aren't living their lives the way you would dictate them to. Its justification for poor behavior and meanness to people who arent hurting anyone (except argueably themselves if you're going to take the "oh well, their souls are doomed to hell" approach).

But perhaps I should have substituted the word "ignorant" for "bigot" in my previous argument. Does that sound more reasonable?

Boggled Coriander · **Reply #26 on:** October 31, 2009, 06:35:14 AM

Quote from: Scattercat on October 31, 2009, 04:58:55 AM

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."

I wonder if the way I think of pedophilia is comparable to the way some anti-gay folk think of homosexuality. I don't think that anyone chooses to be sexually attracted to children, and I don't think having sexual feelings for children is inherently evil, assuming the feelings don't lead to actions. But it goes without saying that potential pedophiles should be encouraged to overcome their feelings, and communities should make every effort to protect their children against sexual predators. Which comes pretty close to: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Of course, the absolutely critical difference is that I can say exactly why pedophilia is destructive behavior. (A ten-year-old can't have a sexual relationship with an adult without getting psychologically hurt.) I can't do that with homosexuality. (If Bob and Kevin, or Sarah and Margaret, are two adults who love each other and want to get married, they're not hurting anyone.) But if I started out with the assumption that human beings were created in such a way that homosexuality was inherently wrong, I wouldn't be thinking along those lines.

Scattercat · **Reply #27 on:** October 31, 2009, 06:44:11 AM

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 think the statement "It's okay to dislike gay people" is incorrect in a variety of ways. Even "It's okay to dislike gay people, but not just for being gay," has some inherent problems with its assumptions. (Maybe "It's okay to dislike someone who is gay. Some people have conflicts of personality.") But if I want to engage with someone who makes those statements and try to change their mind, I reduce my chances significantly if I say, "You're a bigot for saying that." Even "That's bigoted," or "That's ignorant," can be problematic. I empathize with the impulse; if one is sensitive to these topics, it can be hard not to feel angry about it. I'm about as distant from them as can be (straight, white, middle-class, male) and I still get testy when confronted by various forms of prejudice. But I don't think I'm going to make a difference by starting a fight, however much better I might feel afterward.

Basically, my point is that you get more mileage out of your discussions if you assume your conversational partners are intelligent, rational, well-meaning individuals, even if they obviously aren't. My sidetrack about the nature of bigotry was mostly me trying to demonstrate the kind of thinking that can produce a "bigoted" outcome in an intelligent, rational, well-meaning individual, and thus the sort of mindset I would presume in our hypothetical anti-gay-rights advocate. Sure, the total lunatics won't react any better, but they weren't going to be swayed anyway, were they? But you might make some marginal progress on someone who is rational but misinformed, simply by presuming their good intentions and honest philosophical point of view.

---

ETA:
Boggled, that's pretty much exactly the attitude I'd expect to see in a well-meaning anti-gay-rights crusader. And you're quite correct that the problems with pedophilia (power imbalance, potential damage to a developing psyche which isn't prepared for sexuality, physical risk) are not present in an adult homosexual relationship. It is telling, however, that one of the common arguments against gay marriage is that it would be a "slippery slope" leading to legalization of pedophilia and bestiality. The situations are analogous to some worldviews and are grouped together conceptually. (Possibly in a file drawer labeled "Perversions.")

Swamp · **Reply #28 on:** October 31, 2009, 07:40:55 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 31, 2009, 12:19:33 AM

"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.

Okay, I knew I should have taken more time to ask my question so that I could explain it correctly. Leave it up to the moderator to stir things up.

To be honest, the "lock step in the gay rights political agenda" comment was a huge exaggeration. And being naive, I wasn't even thinking about gay marriage. Gay marriage to me has been blown up by both sides over symantics. The conservatives have over reacted. If gays want to marry, that's fine with me. But on the other hand, I thought gay weddings have been happening for decades before the bruhaha. I understand that they didn't have the legal benifits such as wills, tax deductions, next of kin issues, etc.; but I think most people are willing to make that happen. The legal benefits isn't really what everyone's fighting about, is it? It's all about the word "marriage" and its definition that has everyone riled up. Again, I am probably naive about the whole thing. I guess I just want to say that I don't have a problem with making gay marriage legal.

Violence against someone or hatred of them because they are gay is inexcusable. Using hurtful labels like "faggot" is unnacceptable. Job discrimination and such based on sexuality is wrong.

Now, let me explain more what I meant behind my "agenda" comment. I am frustrated that I cannot have a different opinion about homosexuality without being called a bigot and homophobic. And it does fall back on religion. I believe that God has set up guidelines for us to follow so that we can return to him. I believe homosexuality is outside of those guidelines. If your beliefs are different, I don't have a problem with that. Why does this make me a bigot? I'm not saying I'm better than anybody. 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". I know much of it is probably due to people who have used religion as an excuse to do or say horrible things to gays. But that's not me.

I believe adultry is outside those guidelines, too. Does that make me polyphobic? I believe pornography is spiritually harmful. I must be afraid of sex.

I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings by my previous post. I know I should have thought it out more. I was in a hurry, but I should have waited until I had time (or not commented at all). It just really makes me sad to be lumped in with gay bashers and bigots, which the term homophobic denotes to me. I'll let you get back to your discussions that I interrupted. If this goes on much more, I'd ask Heradel or Bdoomed to split this thread since it's deviated from its sci-fi origins, mostly due to me.

--

ETA:

Quote from: Scattercat on October 31, 2009, 06:44:11 AM

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.

Wise words. Again, my choice of words was unfortunate. I wasn't trying to pick a fight, but the "lockstep" verbage sure make it appear that way.

Boggled Coriander · **Reply #29 on:** October 31, 2009, 08:33:57 AM

I agree with everything that Scattercat (among others) has said in this thread. I've got no beef with anything in Swamp's most recent post.

I think civil discussion between people who hold opposing views on gay rights is falling victim to the culture's tendency to seek confrontation on everything. And there's a real problem with the shrillest voices being the ones that are heard the loudest. I'm from Maine, where gay marriage was legalized earlier this year and next week the voters are deciding whether to repeal it. I'm halfway across the world in Taiwan, so all my knowledge is second-hand, but my parents report that the anti-gay folks are filling the airwaves with nonsense like "the QUEERS are getting EMBOLDENED so pretty soon they'll be coming into MAINE'S SCHOOLS from OUT OF STATE to CONVERT OUR CHILDREN". Lots of progressive activists are getting people online riled up by linking to anti-gay opinion pieces that are not pleas for reasoned argument, but shrill preposterous hyperbole, the implication being, "This is what the other side is saying! What vile bigots!"

I say this because, to many supporters of gay rights, this is the face of the opposition. Not calm people who want to discuss the matter intelligently, but sinister forces who want to poison people's minds with fear of homosexuals coming after their children.

So unfortunately, I think Swamp's complaint:

Quote

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".

is a very real complaint, and is a symptom of how badly our culture processes debate and how badly the media reports the so-called "culture wars".

Bdoomed · **Reply #30 on:** October 31, 2009, 08:54:22 AM

Hiya peeps, wanted to apologize for the image (bored in class), it's really that I'm so used to saying "faggot" a lot, it's lost it's meaning. I call my aforementioned gay best friend a fag all the time, he and his gay friends and his boyfriend and everyone know there is no malice behind it, and the word is thrown around so much it is no longer derogatory towards us (fun stuff

). It's actually funny, last time I went to Orlando to visit him, the first question I was asked by a girl I met there was "are you gay too?"

Anyway, I kind of agree with Talia here. Just because you do not realize your tendency to only side with your opinions doesn't mean you are exempt from being a bigot. Take that stupid fucking church of morons who parade around different towns with signs saying "God hates fags" and all the anti-soldier/gays/anti-America crap; tell me they aren't bigoted. They obviously hate gays because their overanalyzation of their religion tells them that it is bad, and tells them how to respond to it. That does NOT excuse their behavior in the least bit.
There are people with honest opinions, and then there are those who just stick to their guns (talking about the phrase here, not stereotype) and their religion (not phrase) and strive so hard to deny gays their rights. I am all for them having their opinions, however much I disagree, but it should play absolutely NO part in legal matters. Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. It is NOT "between a man and a woman", it is a kinship.

Swamp, you don't agree with the gay lifestyle. That's fine, as long as it stays out of legal matters. You (and I'm not saying you do or will or anything) can go so far as to stay away from any and all "gay" activities, and not associate with gays, and even go so far as to shun them from your life if you must (again, not saying you do heh), but as long as your opinion does not affect the American legal system, I could not care less what you believe. I feel bad associating you with this... so ... new paragraph!

It's only when the opinions of people that are solely based on religion get in the way of equal rights progress that this shit gets ridiculous. Those people, the people who ignore the division of church and state, are bigots. I mean for Cthulhu's sake its a RULE! It has been [almost] inherent in our country! And those who chose to ignore it because of their convictions, I believe, can be called bigots. And yes, they ARE opponents, these people need to be ignored, their opinions need to be shunned from the argument, because within the context of legality, they are baseless. Homosexuality between two consenting adults hurts no one, and any harm that comes in the form of sexual diseases are prevalent in Heterosexual relationships as well. Homosexuality is only bad 'in the eyes of god', which cannot be allowed to influence legal matters.

My friend is perfectly happy being gay. He tried his hand at women, decided it wasn't for him, and his boyfriend makes him very happy, the guy is really cool too. I didn't meet him for the longest time, but when we finally met, it was like we had been friends for a long time. And sure I threatened his life should he hurt my friend, but hey, it's not gay bashing if it's not because he's gay, so I'm not worried about being persecuted for a hate crime, only murder

! Though now that I met him, it'll be harder to kill him because he's a friend... hmm... decisions, decisions...

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.

anyway I'm off, gonna pass out, so don't expect any quick retorts to whatever hell my opinions might be put through.

Talia · **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2009, 12:40:04 PM

Well, yeah. IMHO - It means your religion is by nature bigoted. Not frothing-at-the-mouth Fred Phelps bigoted, but all the same, discrimination is written into its very clause. Not discrimination based on solid placed before your very eyes and analyzed with your own mind, but just cuz someone else says its bad, its bad.

No offense intended.

stePH · **Reply #32 on:** October 31, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

Quote from: Bdoomed on October 31, 2009, 08:54:22 AM

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?

) ... 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.

lowky · **Reply #33 on:** November 01, 2009, 02:35:13 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 31, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? ) ... 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.

Heradel · **Reply #34 on:** November 01, 2009, 03:02:18 AM

Quote from: lowky on November 01, 2009, 02:35:13 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 31, 2009, 10:44:01 PM
I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? ) ... 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.

lowky · **Reply #35 on:** November 01, 2009, 03:06:30 AM

Quote from: Heradel on November 01, 2009, 03:02:18 AM

Quote from: lowky on November 01, 2009, 02:35:13 AM
Quote from: stePH on October 31, 2009, 10:44:01 PM
I knew it wouldn't take long to go off the rails and cease being about homosex in SF (what, nobody mentioned Torchwood? ) ... 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.

Again probably just being realistic, but Ianto seemed to actually be struggling with his being gay. As if He had never thought of himself as gay before, he just knew he enjoyed being with/loved Jack. an Identity crisis if you will.

deflective · **Reply #36 on:** November 01, 2009, 04:46:09 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 31, 2009, 10:44:01 PM

what, nobody mentioned Torchwood?

sigh

gelee · **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2009, 09:01:37 PM

I've got to go with Davedoty on this one. The most correct answer is the most boring: depends on the author. On one end you've got Card, or even Haldeman with his very obvious discomfort with homosexuality. On the other end, you've got Banks' Culture, where the protag in "A Player of Games" is chided for being so uptight for never having been with a man, in either gender. Somewhere in the middle you've got Varley's Titan, Wizard, and Demon, with their weirdly adolescent, cartoonish, yet striving to be positive, portrayals of gay and pansexual relationships.
Just depends. For what it's worth, I rather like Banks' approach. Seemed to ring most true in the setting.

MacArthurBug · **Reply #38 on:** November 08, 2009, 01:18:20 PM

My immidiate mental reaction actually WAS torchwood. However their image of Cap'n Jack although interesting sort of pisses me off as a bi-sexual person. The whole he's Tri-sexual, he'll try anything is only so funny. It makes folks of an open minded sexual view look like sluts, easy sex fiends. And darnit a lot of us aren't. I can't speak for the whole of non vanilla thinkers here, but me personally? Just 'cause I find a tree girl attractive dosn't mean I'm gonna be in her bed. Or even going to hit on her openly. K?

Yeah anyway. As to SF being gay/non gay I think it depends on your S/F. There is quite a bit of it that leans in the direction I feel is good- the whole sex is pleasure, why worry attitude. That barrier being broken. Breaking barriors is what quite a few of readers seem to want for their futures. I'm noticed a lot of try-sexuality in a lot of other generas. However it's being fumbled and manhandled by quite a few of it's writers (I'm glaring at you Hamilton) in ways that make it dirtier then the right wing even can imagine.

davedoty · **Reply #39 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:56:45 AM

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/

Heradel · **Reply #40 on:** November 10, 2009, 03:30:08 AM

Quote from: davedoty on November 10, 2009, 02:56:45 AM

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, which lead to StePH creating this thread apparently as a form of protest for the original discussion, so we've become fully recursive now.

For what it's worth, I way up in the thread was just trying to point out that there are levels to things. I think anyone who doesn't like someone because they're gay is incredibly wrong-headed, but I think there are levels beyond that and keeping some differentiation in terms between people who tolerate but do not like gay people and people who are intolerant is useful. I'm neither of those, and wouldn't recommend either. If I were gay, that would be ok, I mean cause hey, I'd like me anyway, because you see, I would feel free, to say that I was gay (But I'm not gay).

stePH · **Reply #41 on:** November 10, 2009, 05:05:36 AM

Quote from: Heradel on November 10, 2009, 03:30:08 AM

Which we discussed here, 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!

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", or even farther back, "Phoney Yumminess"?

eytanz · **Reply #42 on:** November 10, 2009, 01:16:11 PM

Quote from: davedoty on November 10, 2009, 02:56:45 AM

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.

But god, www.the-spearhead.com is one of the worst cesspools I've ever seen online. And that's saying something.

stePH · **Reply #43 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:42:59 PM

Quote from: eytanz on November 10, 2009, 01:16:11 PM

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 that the linked article links to. The sheer ass-hattery of it is awesome to behold.

Heradel · **Reply #44 on:** November 10, 2009, 04:12:53 PM

Quote from: stePH on November 10, 2009, 05:05:36 AM

Quote from: Heradel on November 10, 2009, 03:30:08 AM
Which we discussed here, 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!

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", or even farther back, "Phoney Yumminess"?

Ok, but your initial post wasn't that serious an attempt at a discussion, as they go. I got protest instead of mimicry, but that was my read. Plus, 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.

eytanz · **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2009, 04:17:30 PM

Quote from: stePH on November 10, 2009, 02:42:59 PM

Quote from: eytanz on November 10, 2009, 01:16:11 PM
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 that the linked article links to. The sheer ass-hattery of it is awesome to behold.

Oh, that is a horribe little example of pettiness. But there's a big gulf between showing yourself to be petty and angry, and between outright hate speech. If there's something good I can say about the spearhead website is that at least there's no ambiguity about the fact that it's outright woman-(and gay)-hating. No sheep's clothing for that flea-ridden, mangy wolf.

stePH · **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2009, 09:51:07 PM

Quote from: Heradel on November 10, 2009, 04:12:53 PM

...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.

What can I tell you? That's just how I roll.

Oh, and I think "raging vat of douchebaggery" is applicable to Mr. Benedict's diatribe; anybody disagree? If I cared enough I'd contact him, to remind him that the show he's so proud of being a part of, was essentially a children's program with characters about as deep as an ankle-bath, and that the tone of the show utterly failed to convey the gravity of the situation wherein your race has just undergone a near-genocide and is currently fleeing from pursuers eager to finish the job.

... and that the cast had all of two prominent female characters (not counting Jane Seymour's who didn't survive long past the pilot), and one of those was a prostitute. Science fiction doesn't have to be a sausagefest, and I wonder about the mindset of those who feel so strongly that it should be.

...OMGz, look, I'm gettin' all serious now

Yargling · **Reply #47 on:** December 10, 2009, 01:46:20 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 29, 2009, 02:28:36 PM

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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality

Basically, he funds anti-gay campaigners, is a vocial opponent of gay rights, and even appeared in those stupid 'A storm is coming' ad against homosexuals. Quoting from wikipedia:

Quote

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,"...

Basically, not a good idea to use his works as examples because he is a homphobe outside of his works.

stePH · **Reply #48 on:** December 10, 2009, 04:09:56 AM

Quote from: Yargling on December 10, 2009, 01:46:20 AM

Quote from: stePH on October 29, 2009, 02:28:36 PM
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

To be clear, the bad ending wasn't the fault of the homosex ...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So the same thing would have happened even if the other partner had been female.

P.S., how does one do that black-on-black spoiler text?

Heradel · **Reply #49 on:** December 10, 2009, 04:49:26 AM

Quote from: stePH on December 10, 2009, 04:09:56 AM

P.S., how does one do that black-on-black spoiler text?

Like this.
Er,

Code: [Select]

[glow=black,2,300]]Like this.[/glow]