Let us assure you then: we, the Elders of Sodom do have those opinions, trust me, and many within our ranks hold such opinions not because they are themselves homosexual, (we are open to all and sundry, welcoming even to the Brethren of Breeders,) but simply because they have a trait we refer to as “empathy.” The ethics we hold to among the Elders of Sodom is, generally speaking, based primarily on this “empathy,” and therefore rejects homophobia for the same reasons it rejects racism, misogyny, and all other forms of prejudice. Actually, come to think of it, you don’t actually seem that rational, so maybe our conviction is unwarranted. You may reject the validity of those opinions, but it would hardly seem rational to reject their existence. We’re sure you’re aware that other people can and do have different opinions. If you want your questions to be taken seriously then you would do well to start by asking them without the arrant nonsense of paranoid fantasies in which the SyFy Channel has “recoiled in craven fear and trembling” before the intimidatory might of GLAAD’s “homosex activists” (aka the Elders of Sodom, Media Division.) You would do well to start with the premise that the head of the SyFy Channel’s public commitment to not simply presenting more homosexuality but to presenting it as a non-issue might actually be born of a genuine belief that this is an ethical thing to do. Well, let’s start with the assumptions that will likely lead many to not respond with anything remotely resembling the rational answers you claim you want. Hal is working in a similar over-the-top prose style to John’s post, although I think Hal’s prose is better. And I didn’t limit my answer to children, or even mention genetic defects.Īnyhow, writer Hal Duncan has posted an “open letter” responding to John Wright’s anti-gay post. I answered the question asked, did it in detail, and did so in an extremely respectful manner (even though I don’t think John had behaved in a respectful manner towards others). John appears to have forgotten my comment - even though he answered it with a three-point response (which was deleted before I could respond, alas).
Those of you who tried to draw the distinction between incest and homosexuality, you either limited your comments to a certain type of incest (as with children) or described it as illicit due to genetic defects produced, but in no case that I saw did anyone actually answer the question asked
I admit, I’m miffed that John wrote this in a follow-up post: (He’s also closed his livejournal to comments from anyone but those he has friended.) That’s all fine with me (although I hate to see someone delete comments he has not himself written) - everyone has a right to set the terms of discussion on their own livejournal or blog, up to and including deleting posts you’d rather not have Wikipedia link to. I’m very glad I saved a copy on “Alas,” since Wright later deleted all the comments on his post, and later still simply deleted his entire post. A couple of days ago, I left a comment in response to this post by John Wright.
0 kommentar(er)
