Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_The Dude]

So Card thinks Congress aims to change nature? To decree grey is green? To declare blind = sighted? To enforce the new rule that 1+1 = 3? What a loony. Completely unhinged.

No Seth, it is you who is both loony and unhinged, morally as well as intellectually.

No Droop, that's me you're quoting.

[_Ray A]

No Seth, it is you who is both loony and unhinged, morally as well as intellectually. Homosexuality, whatever else it is, is a perversion; a distortion and violation of natural psycho-sexual development and inclinations, both psychologically and physiologically.

Did God create Gay Animals?

Or did they just become perverted by choice?

[_Droopy]

I'm really quite surprised at the rampant misreading going on here. The difference between what Scott Card actually says and what is being attributed to him is subtly expressed, but enormous.

I tend to see much of this "misreading' as more of a exercise in misreading in the name of a larger agenda, which is to, well, misread.

No one with Card's social/political views is going to be given the slightest benefit of the doubt here, especially by the MoveOn.org Jacobins here for whom the slightest principled dissent from their ACLU orthodoxy on most issues will be interpreted - through the psychological mechanism known as "projection" - as an anti-democratic or totalitarian attack on the constitution and their precious individual freedom (interpreted as doing whatever they wish to do free from consequence, stigma, or dissent, while making all others in society, through legislation or court fiat, de facto participants in their lifestyle choices).

[_Droopy]

My disappointment is in the reading level here. I don't think the problem is intelligence; several on this thread are plainly quite bright. I suspect that the problem is compounded of ideological tribalism and knee-jerk reactions.

Kudos Dr. Peterson. Good choice of words. I couldn't have expressed it better myself.

[_Droopy]

I'm betting that Card's arguments would sound eerily similar to arguments made against desegregation and interracial marriage.

Except that race is somthing genetically inherited and compeletly beyond one's control, as well as being irrelevant to both behavior and character.

Homosexuality is a behavior with vast psychological, social, moral, and spiritual implications, and is, far from being a simple genetic inheritance, contingent on any number of complex, biasing factors.

Ultimately, whether to initiate or, once initiated, continue, homosexual behavior is a mater of the use of agency and choice.

Do you have any more politically correct platitudes lifted from The View. to offer?

[_Ray A]

Ultimately, whether to initiate or, once initiated, continue, homosexual behavior is a mater of the use of agency and choice.

What convinced This former bishop that his gay son had no choice?

[_Droopy]

So you think that opponents of desegregation and interracial marriage were NOT arguing that it would destroy the social fabric of society, defy the will of God, and decent people might have to rise up against the government?

This is logically fallacious. Beastie is attempting here to damn arguments against homosexual marriage by associating the general argument form used by racists in the old South with the general augment form used by opponents of homosexual marriage, without attending to the philosophical substance of the arguments themselves.

This is just a special instance of the ad hominem circumstantial, avoiding the debate by associating a form or strategy of argument with something else distasteful in a logically irrelevant attempt to create a psychological association between the two.

Its also a standard leftist trope used to stop debate in its tracks through the implication of malign motives to the critic of homosexual marriage in its early stages.

Nice try Beastie.

[_Droopy]

Ultimately, whether to initiate or, once initiated, continue, homosexual behavior is a mater of the use of agency and choice.

What convinced This former bishop that his gay son had no choice?

Why don't you ask him?

If you think this kind of anecdotal special pleading is going to convince anyone who understands the really complex and deeply personal nature of psycho-sexual development and its potential biasing dynamics, you are extremely naïve.

This individual apparently was not ready to or capable of, at least at the time he wrote this letter, dealing with his son's homosexuality, its implications for his son and his spiritual development and eternal potential, and the realities of Gospel standards regarding it. He was not able to work through it in a spiritually and psych9olgically mature way, and hence, struck out at the standards themselves.

Such are the spiritual realities of this life, and well attested in the scriptures and human experience.

[_Droopy]

Could we possible get beyond the tired, threadbare left wing trope of "bigotry" and deal with principled criticisms of homosexuality and the concept of homosexual "marriage" as they stand and as they are given - as principled criticisms?

[_Ray A]

Why don't you ask him?

I don't need to ask him. He explains in the letter why he became convinced his son had no control, from observations he, the father, made from when his son was a child, and right into adulthood.