Has anyone else been disappointed by an author?

[The Procrastinator]

Why are people born with malfunctioning reproductive systems? Unable to have children for various physical reasons, both male and female? Why are hermaphrodites born? How about those who don't feel strong sexual attraction at all? Those who go for both? Those who don't want kids and never did? There's a lot of people like this around, all over the place, aside from homosexuals. As far as I can see it's all part of the diversity of our species. We are more than our physiology, at least I hope we are.

Mother Nature doesn't really seem to operate within our little list of rules of "what is natural". Somewhere, somewhen, people have done it all - cannibalism, human sacrifice, ritual rape, torture, socially acceptable homosexuality, socially acceptable maiming or execution, polygamy, polyandry, abortion, culling of the weak (young or old), you name it. What's natural? Ask those to whom it was normal, and they'll tell you. And that's not even considering the behaviour of our fellow mammals, with whom we have so much in common. Throughout the entire animal kingdom, some are "born different" - its just part of life's diversity. Everything is vastly more complex than we first imagine, when you look into it. It all seems to muddle through in the end.

PS - thank god some people are born with a "wrong biological imperative" - should be more of it. We're getting a wee bit overpopulated, don't you think?

[KESpires]

I don't think it's a population issue. I also don't think that letting homosexuality continue will somehow "lead to extinction" as some nutjobs do.

I do wonder if we'll stumble onto it though. Hermaphrodites aren't a good comparison unless you want to concede the point that it is in fact a "condition" they're born with.

Of course we're more than our physiology. We create art; we lead vastly different lives; our experiences and memories make us much more than say, a bird or a tree, or any of the other millions of organisms we share traits or chromosomes with. But, the discussion, the cold, distant discussion that I never hear anyone having, is when are we going to stumble onto the "gay defect"?

If we do, what then? Do we start practicing eugenics? Or do doctors just let parents know way ahead of time that, "Hey, when you son/daughter starts dating, most likely it'll be the same sex. Prepare for that now so you'll cause as little pain to them as possible."

[The Procrastinator]

I'm still not really with you on the defect thing. There isn't a species around that has 100% of its population "able to reproduce" or anywhere near, for various reasons including homosexuality. Like I said, this is natural, its part of the diversity of any complex species. I don't see it as something we need to "fix" or "defeat", even if we could. A better way to spend our energies would be "fixing" why so many people still get so hung up about it. Cultural things like being uncomfortable with homosexuality can be changed, given time and education. Trying to "perfect" the human species so that every single person wants to put their bits and pieces to the use prescribed in the manual is a of a reach. Wouldn't it be better to alter society so that gays aren't given such hassle just for existing?

[KESpires]

What I'm aiming towards here isn't whether we should hunt for it, but what should we do should a researcher stumble upon it?

I mean, if Dr. John Doe came out tomorrow and said that he'd found, without a shadow of a doubt, that drinking coca-cola contributed to the number of homosexuals born, what would people do?

Or to be even more specific, if Dr. John Doe said that he'd found a foolproof way to test pregnant women at a VERY early stage (like say, while it's still legal to abort) and determine if the child was going to be gay, what would people do?

I'd like to think that people would just be happy with the child they get. But I don't think that every person would make that choice.

[The Procrastinator]

Ah, with you now. Yes that would be interesting. I would imagine it depends where you live to an extent. The good thing is that isn't likely to happen for a while, so maybe by the time it does we will have matured socially a little more. I mean we can't do that for something as "simple" as hair colour or eye colour yet, let alone sexual orientation. The thing is, sexual orientation is not a "deformity" or a disease in the same way as Down's Syndrome or the like. I can't imagine that it is going to be simple to spot.

If it did happen now I think some people would opt for abortion, sadly. More so in America than Australia, but still. Actually that would be a pretty quandary for the religious right, come to think of it...

[KESpires]

It certainly would. Those with the largest predisposition against gays are the same with the largest predisposition against abortion.

[The Procrastinator]

Ooo, there's a book in there somewhere! What would Orson Scott Card do??

I can actually imagine well meaning religious right folks having the baby and determining to train it out of being gay, through love.

[KESpires]

Which would just lead to a life of misery and pain, for all concerned.

With all that being said, I'm glad that OSC says what he feels. He isn't overly concerned about left-wing reaction, and some of his beliefs fall into the left-wing category. It is good that people like him speak out, on whatever the case, so we remember that people are solidly right or left. Most of us sort of tread water in the middle.

That's why when asked whether I'm a republican or democrat I say neither. I'm just screwed.

[Ursa major]

Two short points.

• Regarding an author's views: I read books/listen to music/whatever based on the intrinsic qualities of the book/work/whatever. If an author's views are truly repellant, I'd probably borrow the book rather than buy it. (Turn the question the other way round: would you buy an awful book - by someone you didn't know personally, that is - merely because you thought they were verging on sainthood? I wouldn't.)

• As to what is or isn't natural: most of daily human life is very unnatural, e.g. cooking, clothes, deodorants. I must say, though, that life would be pretty awful without them (and a lot of other things). People can have whatever views they like; they can even make rules for their private societies based upon these rules; but basing the rules of society on the prejudices of one group is never going to work well, not in a free society.

[KESpires]

Originally Posted by KESpires

Which would just lead to a life of misery and pain, for all concerned.

With all that being said, I'm glad that OSC says what he feels. He isn't overly concerned about left-wing reaction, and some of his beliefs fall into the left-wing category. It is good that people like him speak out, on whatever the case, so we remember that people are solidly right or left. Most of us sort of tread water in the middle.

That's why when asked whether I'm a republican or democrat I say neither. I'm just screwed.

Ok, that was supposed to say most people aren't solidly right or left.

I have got to start checking my stuff before I post it.

I agree with you Ursa Major. It's like I said in my first response. I've decided, in my own little globe of morality, that a person being homosexual is really no different, in a natural sense, than my insistence on eating oreo cookies dipped in milk.

Now, I wasn't born with a predisposition to eat the oreos. I just like to eath them. Homosexuals, however, were born with a predisposition. So, again in my own little globe, I'm the bigger "sinner" because I can decide not to eat oreos. They can't decide not to be gay.

[Ursa major]

I have free will when it comes to buying Oreos; but once they're in the house, my free will seems to desert me (which is why I don't tend to buy them in the first place).

[KESpires]

So what does everyone think about the gay marriage issue. I've been thinking about it and I think we need to convert our tax terminology so that instead of saying "Married: Filing Jointly" it just says that "Cohabitors: Filing Jointly".

Honestly, why even have married/unmarried people in different tax categories. Just let people that live together file together, claim dependents, etc., and I think most of the issue will go away. States that want to allow them to marry can, others that don't won't. But in the meantime, roommates, homosexual couples, hetero couples that live together and have children, they'll all get the same tax "benefits" that married couples get. That should stop a lot of the issue, I'd think.

[the smiling weirwood]

Well, I don't care about gay marriage because I don't believe in marriage. Its a fairly stupid social mechanism and completely independent of any sort of actual intimate bond. Its a social contract, and one I am not willing to enter into to, not even if Mr. Awesome were to propose to me right now.

But do I believe that *everyone* should have the same rights as everyone else? I absolutely do. The fact that some are denied those rights on a religious basis is unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

[The Procrastinator]

I'm not a huge fan of marriage either, but I can appreciate that there are people who are, so for them marriage is important. Gays should have the right to get married just like anyone else. Failing that they should at least have defacto rights so they're on an equal footing legally. In Oz, defactos have the same rights as married couples - is this the same elsewhere? (I have no idea but I'm guessing from KE's post that its not in the US?)

I don't get the Oreo thing either - but then Oz is home to God's own bickie, the Tim Tam, which makes Oreos look like a pale shadow. (Or should that be Satan's own bickie).

[Ilvian]

I read Ender's Game at 12 and it was a hugely formative book for me. I have a few of Card's books that have been signed and truly, he was a major role in my wanting to be an author. A childhood hero to be sure. Then I read Empire.

An interesting little book that really is not a completely difficult read even with a polar opposite ideology. However, a few things stick out. There are characters who kill people with no other justification than their being afflicted with liberal philosophy (which apparently advocates killing people?). Also, Bill O'Reilly has a bit part as a minor protagonist. (If you like Bill, great! I personally think he represents a scourge upon the Earth. Mainly due to the fact that some people take him seriously)

A few years later I was listening to talk radio while driving around (we get something like 3 dedicated stations of it in my small Montana town. hoooeee!) when a nice show called "the Rusty Humphrey Show" came on (whose theme music is "America! Heck Yeah!" of America: World Police fame, which they use without understanding the irony). I came in mid bit and a man was raving against the UN using an effeminate voice to caricature the US bending to the will of International Interests. When the host's voice returned to normal at the end of his high-pitched rant, he proudly proclaimed: "this is Orson Scott Card standing in for Rusty Humphrey, we'll be right back." I pulled over and had a nice bitter laugh over the assumptions we make about our childhood heroes.

I still am incredibly greatful for the gifts OSC's writing has given me. Any disappointment I feel over the fact that he has beliefs I feel are misguided and borderline dangerous is my own fault. Empire is the only time OSC has disappointed me as an author because it was less about the story and more about getting out a demonizing worldview. My other dissapointments in OSC are simply a product of asumptions made about the world as a 12 year old.