Orson Scott Card

[Quexos]

I have and reasonably at length. But I assume you have not read this thread from the beginning based on what you are saying.

I'll just repeat that I did not say it's wrong, I said it's against nature.

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Perhaps you could explain why you believe it is wrong?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I have and reasonably at length. But I assume you have not read this thread from the beginning based on what you are saying.

I'll just repeat that I did not say it's wrong, I said it's against nature.

I have read the whole thread, thank you, and you have explained nothing. Why (feel free to look up 'why' if it's confusing you) do you say it is 'against nature'.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Quexos

So far I'm only insulted but nobody seems to be capable of saying "you are wrong because xxxxxxx"

You are wrong because you are using an unexplicated notion of "nature". A notion which, if it were explicated, would include a clause something like, "only heterosexual sex is natural" thus rendering your claim circular. But that is just your notion of nature - one not shared by others - so you need to show that homosexuality is against nature without relying on that definition.

And you are likely ignorant as well, I'd say.

[HarryT]

Rich,

Of course you can't be required to support something that you disagree with. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that you can or should.

What I'm saying is that I choose not to buy John Ringo's books in which he expresses his extremist right-wing views because for me those views spoil the story. I have no problem with the fact that he holds those views, even though I vehemently disagree with them, and I continue to read and enjoy those books which he doesn't use as a platform for political diatribe. Ie, I judge the product, not the views of the author. That, for me personally, is the right way to tackle this. Tell Mr. Card that it's not OK to express his views in his books by not buying those books in which he does express them (if indeed there are such books); what he does in his non-writing life is, for me, his own affair.

[Quexos]

Because homosexuality does not support any design in nature. What role does it have ? What purpose does it serve ? You are prejudiced against me when you call me homophobic because I don't think gays are criminals as such, and it is short minded to try to ostracize them as homophobes do. And yet you treat me as one of them. Anyways try to answer the questions at the beginning of this post, it will sure be interesting to read.

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I have read the whole thread, thank you, and you have explained nothing. Why (feel free to look up 'why' if it's confusing you) do you say it is 'against nature'.

[khalleron]

I love the 'homosexuality is against nature' argument because it's so easy to poke holes in.

First, homosexuality is common in 'nature' - every species that has sex has homosexuality (well, not plants, per se. Plants just pollinate everything and let God sort it out).

Second, practically everything modern humans do is 'unnatural', from wearing clothes to pooping indoors. Bathing? Unnatural. Doctors? Unnatural. Reading books? Unnatural. Using a computer to argue with strangers about the unnaturality of homosexuality? Unnatural.

There, Quexos, that's why you're wrong.

And to get this back on relative track, Mr. Card's argument is that *homosexuality* is 'natural' and heterosexuality is *unnatural* and difficult but necessary.

Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men.

Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do. But a man and a woman come together as strangers and their natural impulses remain at odds throughout their lives, requiring constant compromise, suppression of natural desires, and an unending effort to learn how to get through the intersexual swamp.

Link.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Because homosexuality does not support any design in nature. What role does it have ? What purpose does it serve ? You are prejudiced against me when you call me homophobic because I don't think gays are criminals as such, and it is short minded to try to ostracize them as homophobes do. And yet you treat me as one of them. Anyways try to answer the questions at the beginning of this post, it will sure be interesting to read.

Presumably, then, you hold exactly the same views about heterosexual sex where contraception is used? What purpose does that serve in nature?

[Quexos]

How is it unexplicated. How is heterosexual not the only natural sex ? Did you not notice the nature of the substance released by male genitalia during climax ? Perhaps you did not realize it is made of DNA elements whose SOLE purpose is to pair with a female egg in order to produce a new human being ? Or is there some other purpose to semen ? I don't know, colon lubrication or colon wounds healing ? because if semen has any other role than reproduction then I guess you may have a point. Perhaps it is up to you to "explicate" the other functions of semen justifying homosexuality, until then I'd risk saying you are the ignorant one.

Originally Posted by TGS

You are wrong because you are using an unexplicated notion of "nature". A notion which, if it were explicated, would include a clause something like, "only heterosexual sex is natural" thus rendering your claim circular. But that is just your notion of nature - one not shared by others - so you need to show that homosexuality is against nature without relying on that definition.

And you are likely ignorant as well, I'd say.

[xg4bx]

i think the term "homophobic" needs to be changed. the "phobic" implies fear. nobody is afraid of gays, they simply find the lifestyle distasteful.

the only way fear would even come into play is if you're one of the handful of people who think you can "catch" gay or be converted.

[Quexos]

oh but I totally agree with you, contraception is against nature, totally my friend. Now that does not make heterosexuals using contraception criminals does it ? and the same goes for gays (if you read my posts from the beginning you couldn't have missed this as part of my point).

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Presumably, then, you hold exactly the same views about heterosexual sex where contraception is used? What purpose does that serve in nature?

[HarryT]

Quexos,

Please start a new thread in the P&R forum if you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexuality; that's the appropriate place for it.

Thanks.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Quexos

How is it unexplicated. How is heterosexual not the only natural sex ? Did you not notice the nature of the substance released by male genitalia during climax ? Perhaps you did not realize it is made of DNA elements whose SOLE purpose is to pair with a female egg in order to produce a new human being ? Or is there some other purpose to semen ? I don't know, colon lubrication or colon wounds healing ? because if semen has any other role than reproduction then I guess you may have a point. Perhaps it is up to you to "explicate" the other functions of semen justifying homosexuality, until then I'd risk saying you are the ignorant one.

In the light of this response, please respond to my post immediately before yours.

[joenunya]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Rich,

Of course you can't be required to support something that you disagree with. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that you can or should.

What I'm saying is that I choose not to buy John Ringo's books in which he expresses his extremist right-wing views because for me those views spoil the story. I have no problem with the fact that he holds those views, even though I vehemently disagree with them, and I continue to read and enjoy those books which he doesn't use as a platform for political diatribe. Ie, I judge the product, not the views of the author. That, for me personally, is the right way to tackle this. Tell Mr. Card that it's not OK to express his views in his books by not buying those books in which he does express them (if indeed there are such books); what he does in his non-writing life is, for me, his own affair.

Harry,

I completely agree with you about Ringo. I actually came to the impression of his political views after slogging through two of his novels. It was only after that when i looked more closely at info online that I learned of his opinions and beliefs.

And like you I am very disappointed with OSC and his comments. I also feel that, indeed, Ender's Game is one of the very best SF novels I've ever read. I liked it so much I invested in the Audible editions of the complete Ender Series.

I did not read this thread all the way though but I noticed someone mentioned a change in his demeanor in the past several years. Did anyone mention about his stroke (I think it was a stroke) he had? Personalities very often change after such events. Same for heart attacks. I won't let his views alter my enjoyment of his writing.

I hold L. Ron Hubbard in the same regard. He was actually a solid SF writer and would never let his religious positions stop me from read his books when the mood strikes. I would point people to read Battlefield Earth to get an example of him at his best. Sadly that horrible movie might have soured the public on ever reading it.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Quexos

How is it unexplicated. How is heterosexual not the only natural sex ? Did you not notice the nature of the substance released by male genitalia during climax ? Perhaps you did not realize it is made of DNA elements whose SOLE purpose is to pair with a female egg in order to produce a new human being ? Or is there some other purpose to semen ? I don't know, colon lubrication or colon wounds healing ? because if semen has any other role than reproduction then I guess you may have a point. Perhaps it is up to you to "explicate" the other functions of semen justifying homosexuality, until then I'd risk saying you are the ignorant one.

This ejaculation confirms what I said about circularity - your argument amounts to "homosexuality is unnatural because homosexuality is unnatural". By your argument any non-reproductive sex - whether it is non-reproductive by accident or by design - is unnatural. And that's rubbish.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Quexos

oh but I totally agree with you, contraception is against nature, totally my friend. Now that does not make heterosexuals using contraception criminals does it ? and the same goes for gays (if you read my posts from the beginning you couldn't have missed this as part of my point).

Please start a new thread in the P&R Forum as suggested by Harry. That forum is more liberally moderated so we'll be more able to point out your bigotry without fear of being censured by the mods.