Originally Posted by anhalo
lol, the homophobephobe thing was a joke... (And I was up late, I apologise).
What I mean is that there are two sides to every argument, and people are equally entitled to have views against something than to have views for it.
If Orson had of been advocating homosexuality, people would accuse others of discriminating if that was their reason to boycott him. So why should such behavior be acceptable the other way around.
Also, with God based arguements aside, in my opinion there are some negative externalities around homosexuality which are often overlooked.
One of my main concerns is the way some in the movement have started encouraging homosexuals to segregate themselves off from the rest of society. I also have concerns about the cultural aspects/impacts it can have on what in the west is a very family centred culture. Family keeps our societies alive and operable, and unfortunately it can not be built in the same way with homosexual activity.
There are also issues related to people's own health as well, psychologically. A study found that practicing homosexual behaviour increased people's chance of being suicidal (and not due to intolerance, as the levels were replicated in highly pro-homosexual areas as well, with no difference) (I will have to try and dig up the link for that, unless someone else knows of it).
Note that I have nothing wrong with homosexuals. I even have friends that are homosexual. I primarily worry about the possible side effects it can have, and worry when people try to kill such conversation as bigoted (keeping in mind my last post was tongue in cheek).
It's interesting how quickly you jump from stating that homosexuals are prone to suicide, and then state that some study indicates it's emphatically not because of intolerance because of some supposed "pro-homosexual" area. (What area is that? I know of some places where there is less intolerance, but I don't believe I've heard of a culture or state that encourages it. I find all those rapid fire conclusions you're making a bit suspect.)
Anyway I think that people tend to get very silly very fast when people talk about these arguments. If I say that someone is a lousy author that's an opinion. If I say that I think Card is a despicable homophobe based on what he wrote, that's my opinion. I didn't say he didn't have a right to post it... and if he exercises his write to state his opinion, he should be prepared for me to state mine.
If I tried to prevent him from speaking that would be wrong. But nobody has the write to tell me I can't call him a racist. And I decide whether or not I buy a book for all kinds of reasons. And sometimes, I decide not to buy someone's books because I dislike bigots. Sometimes I buy them anyway because the subject interests me.
I don't think that thinking about someone's worldview when you read hteir book is a bad idea at all. Propaganda finds its way into all sorts of strange places, and if an author has sounded off in the past about how much he hates some specific group, that's something to consider when you read their work, because people advance all sorts of ideas through literature.