beccastareyes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
beccastareyes) wrote2009-08-14 08:54 pm
beccastareyes) wrote2009-08-14 08:54 pm
Good writing
Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a network with a goofy name. There was also an organization devoted to discouraging GLBT discrimination. The organization noted which networks were doing good jobs of portraying queer folks in a fair light, and which weren't. As it happened, the network got a failing grade. So the network exec made a statement along the lines of 'We will try harder in the future'. Fair enough.
Apparently SF writer John C Wright was not happy with this. Seeing as he was morally opposed to anything other than procreative sex between a married couple, he issued a long rant about how the network was pandering to the evil Gay Agenda.
Most of you in fandom can imagine the explosion. While there are many explicative-laced rants -- I can provide links, or I can happily give you my own -- I am enamored of Hal Duncan's, linked by Elizabeth Bear and Shweta Narayan. It is wordy, but has some delightful turns of phrase, and profanity is used sparingly (I think there is only 'cut the crap') and in a skillful way to provide emphasis.
Mr. Duncan talks a lot about ethics in his letter, and about worldviews. He notes something that I've noticed both in Mr. Wright's rant and in my own observations about those morally opposed to various gay/trans/queer rights issues.
Mr. Wright seems to see things in black and white. He assumes that because he finds homosexuality -- or given his peculiar contraction, homosexual sex -- as immoral, that . Or perhaps I am reading him wrong -- in which case, I apologize. He seems to group homosexuality in with incest, child molestation, necrophilia and bestiality* in the larger category of 'sexual perversions' and that in the larger category of 'vice'. He then followed up with wondering why homosexuality was seen as all right and other 'sexual perversions' or 'vices' weren't?
Mr. Duncan repeatedly emphasizes in his rant that Mr. Wright's point of view was wrong-headed in that he was apparently assuming that either one held the same 'virtue versus vice' categories that he did, or a complete moral relativist approach. Mr. Wright seems to be unclear how someone could promote or even condone (but again, he seems confused) homosexuality but discourage pedophilia or racism. Mr. Duncan thoughtfully provides the answer -- empathy. Racism and pedophilia are hurtful things to one party of the interaction, while homosexuality (or homosexual sex and relationships) are generally not. Mr. Wright seems to be on the edge of grasping this, but he seems intent on using divisive language on the matter -- if one wants to encourage debate, this is a poor idea.
He also included one of my favorite 'so what?' defenses next to Colin Powell's. One might remember the whole 'Barack Obama is a Muslim, for all that he says he is a Christian, attends a Christian church, mentions this repeatedly in speeches, to an extent lets it define his social views, and was willing to defend his Christian pastor against controversy'. General Powell both noted this, then said 'So what if he was a Muslim? Doesn't mean he'll be a bad president, or that he's ineligible for office -- it just means the bigots have one more reason not to vote for him'. Mr. Duncan notes that while the question of nature versus nurture is an interesting one when it comes to sexuality, ultimately it should not matter -- he notes that, for example, discrimination against Jews is as bad if you go by the ethnic group or the religion.
* Because this is a speculative fiction conversation, I'll note that Mr. Wright seems to mean human/non-self-aware animal sex, rather than human/aware non-human sex. Mr. Spock is quite safe -- after all, his parents were of the opposite sex and married.
Apparently SF writer John C Wright was not happy with this. Seeing as he was morally opposed to anything other than procreative sex between a married couple, he issued a long rant about how the network was pandering to the evil Gay Agenda.
Most of you in fandom can imagine the explosion. While there are many explicative-laced rants -- I can provide links, or I can happily give you my own -- I am enamored of Hal Duncan's, linked by Elizabeth Bear and Shweta Narayan. It is wordy, but has some delightful turns of phrase, and profanity is used sparingly (I think there is only 'cut the crap') and in a skillful way to provide emphasis.
Mr. Duncan talks a lot about ethics in his letter, and about worldviews. He notes something that I've noticed both in Mr. Wright's rant and in my own observations about those morally opposed to various gay/trans/queer rights issues.
Mr. Wright seems to see things in black and white. He assumes that because he finds homosexuality -- or given his peculiar contraction, homosexual sex -- as immoral, that . Or perhaps I am reading him wrong -- in which case, I apologize. He seems to group homosexuality in with incest, child molestation, necrophilia and bestiality* in the larger category of 'sexual perversions' and that in the larger category of 'vice'. He then followed up with wondering why homosexuality was seen as all right and other 'sexual perversions' or 'vices' weren't?
Mr. Duncan repeatedly emphasizes in his rant that Mr. Wright's point of view was wrong-headed in that he was apparently assuming that either one held the same 'virtue versus vice' categories that he did, or a complete moral relativist approach. Mr. Wright seems to be unclear how someone could promote or even condone (but again, he seems confused) homosexuality but discourage pedophilia or racism. Mr. Duncan thoughtfully provides the answer -- empathy. Racism and pedophilia are hurtful things to one party of the interaction, while homosexuality (or homosexual sex and relationships) are generally not. Mr. Wright seems to be on the edge of grasping this, but he seems intent on using divisive language on the matter -- if one wants to encourage debate, this is a poor idea.
He also included one of my favorite 'so what?' defenses next to Colin Powell's. One might remember the whole 'Barack Obama is a Muslim, for all that he says he is a Christian, attends a Christian church, mentions this repeatedly in speeches, to an extent lets it define his social views, and was willing to defend his Christian pastor against controversy'. General Powell both noted this, then said 'So what if he was a Muslim? Doesn't mean he'll be a bad president, or that he's ineligible for office -- it just means the bigots have one more reason not to vote for him'. Mr. Duncan notes that while the question of nature versus nurture is an interesting one when it comes to sexuality, ultimately it should not matter -- he notes that, for example, discrimination against Jews is as bad if you go by the ethnic group or the religion.
* Because this is a speculative fiction conversation, I'll note that Mr. Wright seems to mean human/non-self-aware animal sex, rather than human/aware non-human sex. Mr. Spock is quite safe -- after all, his parents were of the opposite sex and married.