Gay Bashing
I now finished reading two articles, both about the same topic: the attitude of the writer's community toward gays.
The first, Who Cares About The Death of a Gay Superhero Anyway?, is by Perry Moore. It's a list of gay and lesbian super-heroes in comic books, and how they're treated. The main argument of the article is that gay super-heroes get treated worse then straight ones: they are either hurt, maimed, killed, or portrayed as villains and perverts.
The second is provocatively termed "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", and is written by Orson Scott Card.
The first quotes this from the second:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books…to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
Reading this, I couldn't help get mad. But when I went and read the full article, I started feeling something else, perhaps even a little embarrassed.
One of the biggest problems you face when advocating liberal agenda is still being able, honestly and with conviction, to condemn some opinions as invalid. Freedom of speech, for example, doesn't mean you can report the name of secret agents in foreign countries. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can invade someone's home. And freedom of action doesn't mean other people can't condemn your actions as sins. You can't automatically assume anyone treating an opinion as invalid, is wrong.
When breaking down Card's argument, it's very simple: homosexuality is a sin; sex outside marriage is a sin; people who have homosexual tendencies, be them genetic or behavioral, shouldn't sin. Just like anyone else shouldn't sin. It's very hard to argue against this logic: how can I, as a liberal, condemn another man's faith just because it declares something a sin? I don't condemn Orthodox Jews who think the fact I drive on Saturday is a capital offense. They are entitled to their opinions, and to voice those opinions, and try to convince their children and other adults not to do the things they believe are sinful.
However: Card also speaks, at length, about tolerance, about compassion. It's not a coincidence. He knows that all too often words turn into actions, and people who can't stop this sinful activity with arguments do it with violence. Maybe he's trying to exonerate himself in advance against charges he's advocating gay bashing; or maybe he's genuinely against it. Moore thinks Card should not be allowed to express these opinions. He thinks this literature is not meant just to discourage "sinful behavior", but also to encourage violent action to stop it. Similarly, it's ok for someone to stand on a street corner and give speeches against "mixing the races", but it's not ok for someone to advocate lynching. How does the liberal differentiate?
I think the test should be double: one, if you allow for the existence of such a behavior; and two, if you accept all means of stopping it. Christians believe that sinners go to hell; but they don't prevent others from being saved, or from Jesus to come again and bring the End of the World. Their faith allows for sinners. Some might say that Jesus taught to "turn the other cheek", and always condemned violence. Card fails both these tests. He says that accepting homosexual behavior is dangerous to the community as a whole. It's not a behavior that can be allowed to continue within the community. He also writes that while Jesus talked about loving the sinners, he was referring to those who admit being sinners, not these "hypocrites" who refuse to accept their behavior as a sin. I'm not saying Card is advocating violence; he isn't. I'm saying it's easy to see how he isn't coming out against it.
The depiction of gay characters in popular media should withstand the same test: do we allow for the existence of "happy, well-adjusted gays", and do we abhor some activities, no matter the reason? Is it ok for the college quarterback to punch the gay kid because he said he was in love with him? Are all the gays in the show miserable, a-sexual, or dying of AIDS? Moore is saying comics fail these tests. I'm not sure he's right, but I also didn't hear about 90% of the characters he was talking about. I do, however, think that in recent years popular culture in TV made some strides in that direction. Movies, as usual, are lagging behind. But if Dumbledore can be gay, maybe some day we could all be gay.
The first, Who Cares About The Death of a Gay Superhero Anyway?, is by Perry Moore. It's a list of gay and lesbian super-heroes in comic books, and how they're treated. The main argument of the article is that gay super-heroes get treated worse then straight ones: they are either hurt, maimed, killed, or portrayed as villains and perverts.
The second is provocatively termed "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", and is written by Orson Scott Card.
The first quotes this from the second:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books…to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
Reading this, I couldn't help get mad. But when I went and read the full article, I started feeling something else, perhaps even a little embarrassed.
One of the biggest problems you face when advocating liberal agenda is still being able, honestly and with conviction, to condemn some opinions as invalid. Freedom of speech, for example, doesn't mean you can report the name of secret agents in foreign countries. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can invade someone's home. And freedom of action doesn't mean other people can't condemn your actions as sins. You can't automatically assume anyone treating an opinion as invalid, is wrong.
When breaking down Card's argument, it's very simple: homosexuality is a sin; sex outside marriage is a sin; people who have homosexual tendencies, be them genetic or behavioral, shouldn't sin. Just like anyone else shouldn't sin. It's very hard to argue against this logic: how can I, as a liberal, condemn another man's faith just because it declares something a sin? I don't condemn Orthodox Jews who think the fact I drive on Saturday is a capital offense. They are entitled to their opinions, and to voice those opinions, and try to convince their children and other adults not to do the things they believe are sinful.
However: Card also speaks, at length, about tolerance, about compassion. It's not a coincidence. He knows that all too often words turn into actions, and people who can't stop this sinful activity with arguments do it with violence. Maybe he's trying to exonerate himself in advance against charges he's advocating gay bashing; or maybe he's genuinely against it. Moore thinks Card should not be allowed to express these opinions. He thinks this literature is not meant just to discourage "sinful behavior", but also to encourage violent action to stop it. Similarly, it's ok for someone to stand on a street corner and give speeches against "mixing the races", but it's not ok for someone to advocate lynching. How does the liberal differentiate?
I think the test should be double: one, if you allow for the existence of such a behavior; and two, if you accept all means of stopping it. Christians believe that sinners go to hell; but they don't prevent others from being saved, or from Jesus to come again and bring the End of the World. Their faith allows for sinners. Some might say that Jesus taught to "turn the other cheek", and always condemned violence. Card fails both these tests. He says that accepting homosexual behavior is dangerous to the community as a whole. It's not a behavior that can be allowed to continue within the community. He also writes that while Jesus talked about loving the sinners, he was referring to those who admit being sinners, not these "hypocrites" who refuse to accept their behavior as a sin. I'm not saying Card is advocating violence; he isn't. I'm saying it's easy to see how he isn't coming out against it.
The depiction of gay characters in popular media should withstand the same test: do we allow for the existence of "happy, well-adjusted gays", and do we abhor some activities, no matter the reason? Is it ok for the college quarterback to punch the gay kid because he said he was in love with him? Are all the gays in the show miserable, a-sexual, or dying of AIDS? Moore is saying comics fail these tests. I'm not sure he's right, but I also didn't hear about 90% of the characters he was talking about. I do, however, think that in recent years popular culture in TV made some strides in that direction. Movies, as usual, are lagging behind. But if Dumbledore can be gay, maybe some day we could all be gay.