Homophobia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does "homophobic" mean an irrational fear of gays, as the word means, or has it been twisted to simply mean condemnation of their practices?
 
The Pelagic Argosy said:
It works the other way to, though. I hope to have a successful writing career some day. I would hate to have people judging me on my sociopolitical views, rather than on the merits of my work. (Not to mention that it could hurt my book sales, and I'd have to continue working my crappy day job.) Considering that I'm an ultraliberal atheist, this is a real concern. (I heard that atheists in America are less trusted than gays, illegal immigrants, and Muslims.)

However, Cloud's concern about an author's beliefs coloring their work is a real one too. I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the book I'm planning prominently features several atheist characters who are openly scornful of the religious society in which they live. Despite the fact that the religious folks in my story turn out to right all along, I can just imagine all the publicity denouncing my "atheistic agenda." I just want to entertain people, not change their opinions. Of course I'll draw on my own beliefs to an extent. But only as far as it serves the story. All I would ask is that my readers approach my work with an open mind.

[I have an active imagination, don't I? I haven't finished Ch. 1, and already I'm imagining all the bad press.]

To all of you writers out there, what happens when you are interviewed? What happens with the interviewer asks you about your influences? What if you drew heavily on your religious beliefs? What if your story was based on the controversial stem-cell debate? This is all valid source material, correct? Should you decline to answer the questions for fear that you will be accused getting up on your soap box? You finally get a book published, and now you're not allowed to have opinions?

Look at poor J.K. Rowling. She's as reclusive as they come. And she's been labeled with all sorts of evil intentions...corrupting the children with her witchcraft and such. She doesn't even have to say anything.
Click to expand...

Just be true to your beliefs and principles. If people don't like it - tough. For every one that would hold it against you there will be one who would buy because you are an atheist - me for one. Just let me know the title and I'll be down the bookshop pronto! Us atheists have to stick together. :)
 
mosaix said:
Just be true to your beliefs and principles. If people don't like it - tough. For every one that would hold it against you there will be one who would buy because you are an atheist - me for one. Just let me know the title and I'll be down the bookshop pronto! Us atheists have to stick together. :)
Click to expand...

Excellent!

I think we need a secret handshake.
 
Wow this thread is really going all over the place. (Partly my fault?). Joel, as to your question, I think the answer is yes and no depending on where in the thread you read. As to the secret handshake society, I've recently come to thing of that as the religion with no god. My understanding of the definition of atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God. At times I felt that way at other time I felt a strong belief in a supreme diety. Today I have my doubts one way or the other. I see the wrongs commited in the name of religion but I don't think I am smart enough to know enough to rule out any sort of diety. I'm gonna take a wait and see policy.
 
steve12553 said:
I've recently come to thing of that as the religion with no god. My understanding of the definition of atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God.
Click to expand...

My view is that no belief is the norm and that belief is aquired. Therefore the 'disbelief' or 'religion' don't enter into it.

It's a bit like being or not being a supporter of, say, cricket. We aren't born being cricket supporters but some people get interested and become fans. Those that don't aren't described in 'cricket' terms as 'non-crickets supporters' because that is the default state.

As for 'religion with no god' I prefer 'no religion' and as for 'disbelief in the existance of god' I prefer 'don't believe god exists'. There is a difference. Your definitions imply that belief is the default state and somehow that atheists opt out. I think it is the other way around. :)
 
the_faery_queen said:
why would that be a problem? the book orlando had the main character change gender. and katherine kerr's devery series had reincarnated characters who changed gender (only once though i think. in her world souls tended to come back as the same gender, something that annoyed me. the last thing i'd want is to ALWAYS be female. i'd like to be male sometimes, or a cat :) so i like the idea of people coming back as anything)
Click to expand...

Weellllll....you might be right...I may be playing the "What if game" in my own pea brain...

But, I figure the Lesbians won't (or at least a goodly portion of them) like that Dante is Male through most of the book or for the first book...(It started out as a single book..but ahhh...it's looking more and more like two would be better..maybe..lmao) Then, in the second part Dante becomes Dani/f while Laurel (f in the first) stays f in the second...called Suzanne. The first part takes place in the Middle Ages, the second in "Modern Day/now" Both parts have fairly graphic sex....after all part of the story is that they are deeply in love with each other enough so that they come together in their bond both spiritually and physically over time.

The hard core bible thumpers will be pissed that they are having sex at all and then that part of the time they are two women, some Lesbians (assuming they are on the "high moral road") that part of the time one of the characters is not only male, but really good at what he does with his beloved...(tongue in cheek...straight males would probably love it best...since the first part shows men as capable of being very proficient...and then too because many are...hmmm fairly interested in what goes on between two women in love)

Who knows...if I make fun of it in my head first...maybe I'll jinx-proof it...:rolleyes:
I can't count my covers till they're drawn.:p
 
but are these people likely to read your book? i was worried about the same thing, mostly ailenaiting homophobic fantasy readers (of whcih i am sure there are some) or just those who don't like male on male lovin, as my stuff always has that (and i have had some emails from people who didn't like it, including a gay man who said only gay men should write gay sex) but my theory was, dont' like it, don't read it! you can't please everyone. and even if you write something that isn't altnerative in any way, not everyone will like it. i don't like tolkein or rowling. you just have to write what is right for you and see what happens :) cos for every person who hates that sort of thing, you will probably find one who likes it
 
the_faery_queen said:
but are these people likely to read your book? i was worried about the same thing, mostly ailenaiting homophobic fantasy readers (of whcih i am sure there are some) or just those who don't like male on male lovin, as my stuff always has that (and i have had some emails from people who didn't like it, including a gay man who said only gay men should write gay sex) but my theory was, dont' like it, don't read it! you can't please everyone. and even if you write something that isn't altnerative in any way, not everyone will like it. i don't like tolkein or rowling. you just have to write what is right for you and see what happens :) cos for every person who hates that sort of thing, you will probably find one who likes it
Click to expand...

You have a perfect point...Originally I was going to market it towards the Lesbian story publishers....but now I'll just finish it and put it out there and hope for the best...stranger things have happened! (and won't I "owe" the many wonderful editorial helpers HERE a big fat credit, if the sucker does get picked up...and even if it doesn't in my opinion!) Folks here are so very kind and giving with their knowledge!
 
:) good luck with it. im sure it will get accepted. mine was (with small print, granted) and after that i think anything can! :)
 
mosaix said:
My view is that no belief is the norm and that belief is aquired. Therefore the 'disbelief' or 'religion' don't enter into it.

It's a bit like being or not being a supporter of, say, cricket. We aren't born being cricket supporters but some people get interested and become fans. Those that don't aren't described in 'cricket' terms as 'non-crickets supporters' because that is the default state.

As for 'religion with no god' I prefer 'no religion' and as for 'disbelief in the existance of god' I prefer 'don't believe god exists'. There is a difference. Your definitions imply that belief is the default state and somehow that atheists opt out. I think it is the other way around. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry to dig out such an old thread but there is a letter in New Scientist 13th January 2007 page 19, from Roy Sablosky of Maryland US that I think expresses my views more eloquently than I can. I quote:

"An atheist simply does not believe in any gods. By definition this is not a belief. Just as nakedness is not a way of getting dressed; sleep is not a technique for paying attention; sunlight is not a kind of shade (nor even its opposite): atheism simply means that one has no religious beliefs. Even to call it a 'non-belief' is perhaps misleading. After all when you are feeling comfortable you don't call it 'non-pain'. Many believers literally cannot imagine that atheism is possible. But millions of us enjoy it - all day every day."
 
mosaix said:
"An atheist simply does not believe in any gods. By definition this is not a belief. Just as nakedness is not a way of getting dressed; sleep is not a technique for paying attention; sunlight is not a kind of shade (nor even its opposite): atheism simply means that one has no religious beliefs. Even to call it a 'non-belief' is perhaps misleading. After all when you are feeling comfortable you don't call it 'non-pain'. Many believers literally cannot imagine that atheism is possible. But millions of us enjoy it - all day every day."
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Sorry to be so succinct, but otherwise I'd just be repeating the quote! All I can say is...I concur :D
 
I don't see why an author's political philosophy has to matter at all. I loved every one of Arthur C. Clarke's and Carl Sagan's books that I read, even though they were athiests and were somewhat outspoken in thier low opinion of Christianity. But so what? They could still tell a good sci-fi yarn.

When I turn on the radio in my car and start flipping stations, if I hear a song I like, then I leave it there. I don't really care what the artists's personal views are, if they can make some good music, that's all that matters.

Books shouldn't be taken so personally.
 
I never found out about his personal beliefs until I started reading the Alvin Maker series.
I think the Ender's Game series is pretty neutral, and if you don't read it you're missing out, but his Alvin Maker and Homecoming series are both pretty obvious soapboxes.
 
I do not think Orson is homophobic. A homophobic person, by definition, is afraid of homosexuality. Orson seems very rational in his explanation of why he disagrees with the homosexual activity and lifestyle and so forth. Please do not interpret that to mean that I agree with him. I am simply saying that he is rational in his explanations. Which would be the opposite of being fearful.

I will confess that I am a bit of a homophobic person myself. I do not want this to be interpreted that I dislike individuals who are homosexual or that I am biased against them, because I inherently believe that persons who have same sex relationships are entitled to the same benefits and lives and goodies that persons who have opposite sex relationships. That is not what I mean to say. What I mean to say is that for me, personally, it is very hard to watch two men acting out a relationship on television or in person. It makes my stomach go all icky. However, I do not have the same problem watching two women. I do not know why this is.

I also have a serious problem with male transvestites, they actually scare me, and I mean as in turn the other way while walking down the street kind of scared. This is not an emotion or feeling I am proud of, because I believe in free will and individuality and freedom of expression. It is a simple fact of my nature. That does not mean that I would be hateful or biased or racist or whatever towards these individuals, but that I do have a negative feeling in my head and body when presented with individuals who are male that dress like females that I repress. It is basically the same feeling I have with spiders, just an all over creepy icky tummy scared feeling.

This is an internal, emotional problem that I have within myself. It does not mean that I dislike these particular individuals, but that my internal process is impacted by seeing these particular individuals. (lol...anyone seen Idiocracy?)

I have worked with, went to school with, and am still good friends with, and my hubby occasionally works for, homosexual individuals and couples. I have explained this to them and one guy who I went to high school said:

"That is exactly how I feel when watching a man and a woman make out."

PS: I hope that this doesn't offend anyone. I am just trying to explain how I feel when confronted with certain situations. That does not mean that I act on those feelings, because there is a difference between feeling something and doing something, and I don't have a right to oppress or dictate or project my feelings upon others, as all others have the same rights I do.
 
I doubt he's a homophobe. And I respect that he is perfectly comfortable saying what he believes, which causes him a lot of flack.
 
fifteenjugglers said:
At the risk of getting flamed by fans of Orson Scott Card, I'm just wondering if his writing (or the man himself) is as homophobic as I've heard/read other people say. I've heard a lot of great things about this guy but the whole homophobic thing has put me off.

Can some true fans set the record straight for me?
Click to expand...

Instead of asking some people's opinions about some other people's opinions having to do with a certain writer's opinions as reflected in his writings, why don't you just read one of his books and see for yourself?
 
the_faery_queen said:
well for me, i guess, i wouldn't want to read a book by someone who was anti something that i believe in. i know that a person's personal view points doesn't always come out in their literature or affect their books, or even have that much to do with what they're writing, but i just wouldn't want to buy a book by someone who had personal dislike/issues, with something i supported. i wouldn't buy a book from anyone pro life (in an aggressive sort of way) anti gay, or misognistic or anything like that, even if theire books had nothing to do with abortion, gays or women whatsoever. i guess i just wouldn't want to have any links with someone that was that openly against things i believed in.
Click to expand...

oh, you aren't going to be able to read much of what has been written. I would say almost every person writing before 1960 was at least mildly sexist and racist. Anything before the 20th century (with few exceptions) would be written by racists and sexists, at the least.
 
KESpires said:
I doubt he's a homophobe. And I respect that he is perfectly comfortable saying what he believes, which causes him a lot of flack.
Click to expand...

No, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe. He has written op-ed pieces for newspapers against homosexuality, he works for and promotes an organisation with an anti-gay agenda, and his novella Hamlet's Father links homosexuality with paedophilia. See here for more information on his homophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top