Vanguard controversy

[Cicero]

Trent Roman said:

Cicero said:
I won't speak for TheLonelySquire, but I do think there has been rather too much reaction to his comments and too little reading of them.

TheLonelySquire's originating post indicated that he'd returned the books after being disturbed by the sexual content in the book, including a lesbian relationship. That's a reaction of avoidance, of dismissal, suspect to begin with.

Of avoidance, certainly, to which he is entitled unless based in scorn or contempt.

He further clarified his cultural context by precising his objection was 'moral' and provided Biblical quotations. Thus, this avoidance/dismissal of gays is based in relegious intolerance. I would characterize that as homophobic behaviour.

Religious opinion, perhaps, leading to (poorly founded) moral disagreement. He's made clear that he supports equal rights for homosexuals, considers them persons equal to himself, and respects the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. I don't see what is intolerant or homophobic in his position.

I disagree with him, but I suspect that it's his reasoning which is flawed, not his heart.

Smiley said:
If I'm understanding correctly, Cicero was using the word "homosexuality" to refer to the practice, not the people. Just like it is possible to hate the thieving but love the thief, it is also possible to hate the homosexuality but love the homosexual.

But thieving is a negative behaviour. Homosexuality is ethically neutral.

That's an informed opinion, but not one which bears on what the example is trying to illustrate. I might (for whatever reason) feel that flying is immoral, but still feel and behave compassionately and normally toward birds. You can love those who do things you don't like - whether your worst enemy, your closest friend, or a random member of humanity.

There are no grounds for hate in the first place. Further, a great many homosexuals are born that way, such that homosexual acts are nothing more than an expression of their being.

This is of course, true, and a significant part of why the reasoning behind TheLonelySquire's moral position is flawed.

Since it's ethically neutral (unlike, say, potentially maladaptive genetic inclinations to alcoholism), the bigots are objecting to the person being the person...

This is true, but I'll again suggest that TheLonelySquire isn't exhibiting signs of bigotry, but (foundationally flawed) moral disagreement.

There's also the question of the difference between being 'right' with him and 'right with God'. I'm not a participant in these mechanics, but that sounds someone alike to the difference between being 'right' with me and 'right' with the law. I may like you, but you're still going to jail.

and such this attempt to distinguish between person and act comes across as more of an exercise in sophistry than anything else.

I'm a big fan of the sophists. (And, yes, I'd have voted to execute Socrates.) More to the point, there is a significant difference between person and act. You can love someone who does wrong, even though you despise what they are doing. You don't hope for rehabilitation or improvement of the act, but the person, and their next act.

(Besides, homosexuality isn't an act, it's an attribute, like height and humanity.)

 

[TheLonelySquire]

middyseafort said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Please don't get me wrong. I advocate equal legal protections for everyone, including homosexuals. They are people and deserve ths respect.

However, moral conduct is another matter. It's not homophobic to disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds. Same thing with adultery.

Well, seeing as most conservatives are Christians, you can have the world after we're gone. In the meantime we'll maintain the moral compass.

Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

It is my experience that those who take the “moral high ground” or preach the good word and god’s will are they themselves besieged with an internal spiritual and sexual quandary that they feel compelled to manifest by calling others out on their "immorality."

What is really funny is that some of you preach tolerance, yada, yada. You don't seem to be very tolerant of opposing opinions. You really seem to get upset very easily, which is unfortunate.

Practice what you preach.

Are you, sir, no different?

Then if we are to be tolerant of yours than shouldn’t you be tolerant of ours?

What is upsetting is the ignorance that is spewed from those that have the “moral compass,” and it does disturb me greatly and gets me emotionally charged. It is that kind of misinformed opinion that should not be tolerated because it begins to separate us as human beings, and for what sexual identity? That kind of fear and hatred results in terror and injustice.

Despite having disagreeing with your “moral” values, which I find that there is a fine line between morality and judgment, I applaud you for doing what others of your “morality” are unable to do—return the book, or better yet turn off the damn television or not see the movie.

We are entitled to an informed opinion; however, the internet and conservatism seldom have anything to do with factual information.

Well stated. Thank you not completely hammering me.

Now, I am tolerant to the point where I have to change my reading choices. At that point I simply returned the books. I just responded to someone's thread here.

I'm all for people living their lives as they see fit. They can swing from the chandeliers for all I care. However, when someone here or anywhere tells me that homosexuality is normal, I'm going to tell them that it's not. Being tolerant doesn't mean accepting something that simply isn't so.

Oh, and if you saw my wife you'd know the only sexual quandary I am in is that there's not enough hours in the day.

 

[Christopher]

Just one more thing, in response to Cicero's earlier suggestion that embracing Star Trek's rejection of intolerance is "reflexively left-wing": I would point out that the Republican Party was originally formed, back in Abe Lincoln's day, on a civil-rights platform. It remained a leader in civil-rights reform well into Richard Nixon's day -- in which time it was also at the vanguard in promoting environmental protection. Definitions of "right" and "left" shift with the political winds. The "right wing" has changed profoundly in its positions from where it was generations ago, and no doubt the "left wing" has as well.

Believing that people have the right to be themselves without being judged for it is not a partisan position. Taking sides doesn't accomplish anything except giving people an excuse to fight. What accomplishes things, what makes the world better, is when people reach out to each other and find common ground. And that's what Star Trek is about.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Babaganoosh said:
Maybe it was a joke...

I mean, I've never seen anything pro-Iraq in any Trek novel. (This does not personally offend me, even though I supported the war and still do.)

Dave and I have made our peace on the issue.

I read Harbinger as justifying the Iraq adventure. Reyes as a thinly-disguised Bush was obvious, as was T'Prynn as the Cheney/Rove analog. Pennington was Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson. The subversion of civil rights, the co-optation of the judicial system, the perpetration of lies to offer inaccurate justifications for the military adventure in the sector--all of those elements were in Harbinger, and this is what's happened to this country and Iraq in the past six years.

Obviously, Dave didn't intend for Harbinger to be read that way. I know Dave, I know his politics. He wouldn't write a story that justifies the actions of the Bush crime family and their rape of the American experiment. Like I've said, we've made our peace.

But sometimes, especially in a thread about something as unimportant as where two fictional characters are getting their orgasms, you gotta stir up some bees.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

I hope I will find the time soon to write a detailed review of “Reap the Whirlwind”. For now I want to say, I enjoyed the book very much and think it is the best Vanguard so far.

I have followed this discussion and mainly want to add one thought: People tend to make it too easy on themselves. There are many reasons why marriages break down and why people become adulterers. People should not just condemn the adulterer without looking at the circumstances. Of course, what Pennington did was not right but I had to wonder if Pennington should ever have married his wife in the first place. They were too different and I was left with the feeling that the marriage was a mistake. After the way she acted, I couldn`t help but feel more disgusted with her and have sympathy for Pennington.

I have no problems with homosexuality in Vanguard either. Bringing the Bible into this and warming up the “homosexual agenda” discussion again is just getting tiresome.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Turtletrekker said:
As an aside, I have to say that given the subject matter, this has been a remarkably civil discussion. Go us! :thumbsup:

I want to echo this sentiment. I'm very impressed by the civil tongues expressed in this thread. There are a few minor exceptions but nothing to get hung up on. Otherwise, keep up the good work. I wish I could participate but I wish to remain impartial in case a problem does arise.

However, there is one thing I have to point out:

Trent Roman said:
...and provided Biblical quotations.

Actually, that's not exactly the case. The quote was from TheLonelySquire's signature, which he had not pointed out directly, nor did he quote any other portions of the Bible. Someone else quoted the signature and the discussion went from there. Doesn't take away from your overall point, but this error needed rectifying.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

David Mack said:

Allyn Gibson said:
I open a thread on the "Vanguard Controversy," and I was expecting something on the pro-Iraq politics of the series.

I have said this before, and it seems I must say it again:

There are no "pro-Iraq" politics in Vanguard. Regardless of what you inferred, Allyn, it is not there, and your analogy is, at best, a reach. Anyone who has read my TNG novels A Time to Kill and A Time to Heal will know that your assertion strains credibility.

Yes, T'Prynn took ethically and morally questionable actions to prevent a conflict, and her C.O., trusted her too much and didn't ask how she got things done. All of this was setup for the eventual blowback that occurs in Summon the Thunder and Reap the Whirlwind.

The metaphor that was intended in Harbinger was for the Dan Rather fiasco, in which a reporter proceeds with a story that, despite being basically true, is undermined by evidence that later is revealed to have been fabricated (possibly by people who wanted the story neutralized). Even though lots of people know the story is still factual, because the "evidence" is tainted, the reporter is robbed of credibility and the botched evidence is used as an excuse to ignore the essentially true nature of the story.

As for the story elements that spurred The Lonely Squire to return the books, I feel no need to apologize for my narrative choices. I intended those characters to be complex, mixtures of good and bad, fusions of heroic and flawed, selfish and noble. An adultress who is brave enough to hold her post to the final moment of a battle. A good reporter in search of truth who is living a lie. A woman tasked with providing security who sets in motion a slow-action domino effect that will cause more harm than it prevented. And so on.

I return you all now to your round-robin tirades. Enjoy, and thanks for arguing.

Mr. Mack,

I respect your right to develop your characters however you see fit. Ultimately, it just wasn't for me. I do wish you much success with the series and in the future as well.

 

[flandry84]

Is there a Waltons-lit forum ?

 

[Cicero]

Christopher said:

Cicero said:
One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in StarTrek. Like autistics, there's no evidence for the continuance of this differently-wired population continuing.

That's like saying a person would be surprised that, say, Mt. Kilimanjaro continues to exist in the Trek universe just because there's no evidence for its existence.

It's little like saying a person would be surprised that Kilimanjaro exists on Star Trek. We've not been in a context where we'd have had a reasonable opportunity to see Kilamanjaro, so it would unreasonable to draw any conclusion at all (other than that there's a good chance of it, given that the Earth exists and we've heard of no disasters in Africa).

Human homosexuality is never seen, even though attitudes toward homosexual relationships appear welcoming. With all the characters we've seen (and the breadth of presence of homosexuality in the last decade or so), its absence is conspicuous. It may no longer exist. Or it may still.

I mean, what possible mechanism could there be to bring about such a cessation of existence? Why would anyone expect it to happen?

I do expect it to happen, if only because parents in general prefer normalcy, and will likely have the ability to choose it in the future, through control of both genetics (even if it comes to choosing an un-tampered-with zygote which doesn't bear the relevant genes) and the developmental environment.

It's reasonable to expect homosexuality to at least all but disappear.

It is not even remotely reasonable. Homosexuality has been part of human nature for as long as humans have existed. It is observed routinely in countless species in nature. It is not a recent or temporary aberration, but a normal part of the diversity of living things. Yes, it's rare, but no more so than lefthandedness or a genius IQ or a cat with two different eye colors. There's nothing the least bit reasonable about expecting diversity to disappear in favor of uniformity, because nature is not an assembly line.

It's reasonable to expect it to disappear due to human action, not some other natural process.

Smiley said:
If I'm understanding correctly, Cicero was using the word "homosexuality" to refer to the practice, not the people. Just like it is possible to hate the thieving but love the thief, it is also possible to hate the homosexuality but love the homosexual.

Which is total crap. Saying "I've got nothing against homosexuals so long as they don't have homosexual intercourse" is like saying "I've got nothing against women so long as they don't get pregnant" or "I've got nothing against Muslims so long as they never pray to Mecca" or "I've got nothing against the Chinese so long as they speak English." You can't subdivide a person that way, to say you're okay with them so long as they never do something that's fundamental to who and what they are but instead conform to the standards favored by another group. It's pure bigotry that tries to disguise itself as tolerance by splitting hairs.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what's been said. The argument is that you can care for, like, and have respect for someone whose moral choices you disagree with (though I'll note again that homosexuality is neither a choice nor a moral issue). My friend may be a Republican, but they're still my friend. To use an example from this board, I Enterpriser was one of my favorite posters (and a friend) even though I fundamentally disagreed with his morality.

Homosexuality, I'll note again, is an attribute, not an action. Actions will almost certainly result from it (and shouldn't be judged separate from it unless actually so), but the sexual actions of a homosexual are not that person's homosexuality.

No one considers rubbing a blanket against ones' face to experience its texture autism. They recognize that it's only an expression of that attribute.

 

[Cicero]

Steve Roby said:

Cicero said:

William Leisner said:
I'm curious as to why "negative comments" expressing the complete and unequivical opposition to an entire class of people does not amount to "contempt."

Moral disagreement (however ill-founded) does not equal disrespect or scorn.

Calling homosexuality a moral issue at all requires a lot of unspoken assumptions that not everyone shares. Bringing morality into it means saying that there's a right and a wrong, and if you think something's wrong, disrespect and scorn are just a couple of steps farther down that road.

They are (possibly), but not everyone takes those steps. Only faulty reasoning will cause you to consider homosexuality a moral issue, but that flawed logic doesn't indicate whether one's character is also flawed. Poor compassion is the cause of disrespect and scorn, not bad reasoning.

 

[TerriO]

See, I don't have a problem with the homosexuality aspect of it. I mean, they're aliens. Applying human mores and values that aren't even agreed upon NOW on this planet to aliens in the future is lining yourself up for disappointment because they're, well, aliens. Aliens aren't going to go along with beliefs only a portion of the human world holds true now. That's kind of the nature of the beast, as it were.

The problem I had with Vanguard was that I wanted Pennington to die, and die painfully for willingly being a cheating, lying scumsucking weasel led around by a portion of his body that definitely wasn't his brain. And if he was supposed to be the most sympathetic character and eventually be held up as some kind of "hero" for the Pennington School, the series was only going to raise my blood pressure. To me, there's nothing redeemable about that character trait.

Again, those are just my preferences as a reader and a writer. I fully acknowledge that others probably won't have a problem with that. That's the way the world works. I put it in the same category with not inflicting my personal beliefs on anyone, and I appreciate that most people--especially when they learn my spiritual beliefs (thank you, my 'loving' family)--don't try to inflict their beliefs on me. *shrug*

 

[JD]

Maestro said:
LonelySquire, I don't think anyone is disrespecting you or your opinion regarding your moral beliefs and right to not read something that interferes with those beliefs. What we are trying to point out to you is that having something immoral appear in a medium is not the same thing as glorifying it. It's very easy to miss the difference, but it's there and it's pretty substantial. Just because Mr. Mack writes about an adulterous relationship doesn't mean he is endorsing it.

When I first read that all I could think was, if that were the case then the people who wrote The Sopranos, Deadwood, Rome, or even nBSG would have to be some really horrible people.

Just out of curiosity LonelySquire, do you watch alot of TV or movies? I'm not trying to be snotty, I'm honestly curious because if you refuse to have anything to do with anything that deals with stuff you find objectionable then there must not be much for you to watch.

 

[Cicero]

Christopher said:
Just one more thing, in response to Cicero's earlier suggestion that embracing Star Trek's rejection of intolerance is "reflexively left-wing":

I did not suggest that. (You regularly misread my posts. Why do we communicate so poorly?) I suggested that (reflexive) reactions (e.g. insinuating contempt or intolerance on their part) against persons who speak negatively in relation to homosexuality without stopping to examine whether their statements actually are bigoted or intolerant is reflexively left-wing.

Intolerance should, of course, be rejected. But the comments of those who share views (but not intolerance) with the intolerant should not be attacked as that which they aren't. They don't deserve your intolerance any more than what you think is their target deserves what's imagined as theirs.

I would point out that the Republican Party was originally formed, back in Abe Lincoln's day, on a civil-rights platform. It remained a leader in civil-rights reform well into Richard Nixon's day -- in which time it was also at the vanguard in promoting environmental protection. Definitions of "right" and "left" shift with the political winds. The "right wing" has changed profoundly in its positions from where it was generations ago, and no doubt the "left wing" has as well.

The Republican Party also originated the ERA (at their 1920 convention), and bore an admirable reformist banner in the postwar and progressive periods. I greatly admire the party until its descent at the 1912 convention, and find admirable qualities of regularly lessening degree within it's principles all the way until Ronald Reagan's ascension.

I am a left-of-center American (a Progressive, though, more than a Liberal). But I'm not blind to the failures of the left, however less they are than the flaws of the right.

Believing that people have the right to be themselves without being judged for it is not a partisan position. Taking sides doesn't accomplish anything except giving people an excuse to fight. What accomplishes things, what makes the world better, is when people reach out to each other and find common ground. And that's what Star Trek is about.

I agree. My point, actually, was that we should examine the individual argument, not treat it as another of a partisan group. It's hard to reach out when closing the usual door.

 

[Cicero]

Allyn Gibson said:
... the Bush crime family and their rape of the American experiment.

I saw a payphone a few months ago with the words 'this phone may be tapped by the Bush crime family.' scrawled across it. It was interesting to see such a political statement in so unassuming a place.

 

[Cicero]

TerriO said:
See, I don't have a problem with the homosexuality aspect of it. I mean, they're aliens. Applying human mores and values that aren't even agreed upon NOW on this planet to aliens in the future is lining yourself up for disappointment because they're, well, aliens. Aliens aren't going to go along with beliefs only a portion of the human world holds true now. That's kind of the nature of the beast, as it were.

That's true (if a dangerous road). I agree that human mores don't apply, but lest characters become to unrelatable (unless the point is their alienness), it's good to keep in mind that the audience is human (and probably American).

The problem I had with Vanguard was that I wanted Pennington to die, and die painfully for willingly being a cheating, lying scumsucking weasel led around by a portion of his body that definitely wasn't his brain. And if he was supposed to be the most sympathetic character and eventually be held up as some kind of "hero" for the Pennington School, the series was only going to raise my blood pressure. To me, there's nothing redeemable about that character trait.

You don't think he can become a better person? I didn't like Pennington at all in Harbinger, but came to think very well of him by the end of Reap The Whirlwind, by which point he was considering his own growth, having realized what an awful person he had been.

Again, those are just my preferences as a reader and a writer. I fully acknowledge that others probably won't have a problem with that. That's the way the world works. I put it in the same category with not inflicting my personal beliefs on anyone, and I appreciate that most people--especially when they learn my spiritual beliefs (thank you, my 'loving' family)--don't try to inflict their beliefs on me. *shrug*

I generally agree with you, TerriO. Pennington was unpleasant to read about in Harbinger, and took away from the excellence of much of the rest of the book (as did T'Prynn until Reap The Whirlwind). I don't like reading about vile actions the story - or better the character committing the actions - isn't clearly condemning. It's becoming ever rarer to not see them, though, which is frustrating for one who loves to read.


Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to post thrice in a row. The pace of the discussion seems to have slowed.

 

[Trent Roman]

Maestro said:
LonelySquire, I don't think anyone is disrespecting you or your opinion regarding your moral beliefs

Just for the record, I am. I only respect rational arguments and/or hard evidence, and I have yet to see one of those deployed here, or indeed in decades worth of argument on this artificial issue. All people are free to hold their opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to respect the opinions themselves even as we respect the right to expression. A person should not be allowed to state an obvious error and go unchallenged simply by disclaiming it as his or her opinion. If someone said (to use an example from another thread) "In my opinion, the world is flat...", I wouldn't at all feel beholden to respect that opinion. As I do not this preposterous construct of fairy tale and phobia.

Cicero said:
Of avoidance, certainly, to which he is entitled unless based in scorn or contempt.

Unless? This is not flavours of ice cream we're talking about. It's people. If I exhibited avoidance of blacks, would I not be racist? Of Jews, anti-Semetic? The inherent rights of people demand that they not be ignored and cast aside simply for who they are.

Religious opinion, perhaps, leading to (poorly founded) moral disagreement. He's made clear that he supports equal rights for homosexuals, considers them persons equal to himself, and respects the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. I don't see what is intolerant or homophobic in his position.

There's the avoidance, as I said. And there is little difference between religious opinion and religious intolerance... not when one considers the implicit threat behind 'not being right with God'.

I disagree with him, but I suspect that it's his reasoning which is flawed, not his heart.

Irrevelant. I don't care how people feel. I care how they act towards others, what kind of ideology they see fit to propagate.

That's an informed opinion, but not one which bears on what the example is trying to illustrate. I might (for whatever reason) feel that flying is immoral, but still feel and behave compassionately and normally toward birds. You can love those who do things you don't like - whether your worst enemy, your closest friend, or a random member of humanity.

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Even if you take the example of a criminal that needs to be rehabilitated, somewhere you are expressing negative opinion of that person in suggesting that there is something about them that needs to be changed. Which isn't at all wrong in the case of the prisoner, but is when applied to those innocent of misdeed.

This is true, but I'll again suggest that TheLonelySquire isn't exhibiting signs of bigotry, but (foundationally flawed) moral disagreement.

And again, I ask: what's the difference? Why would discrimination based in faith be somehow better than discrimination based in, for instance, a belief in social darwinism?

More to the point, there is a significant difference between person and act. You can love someone who does wrong, even though you despise what they are doing.

Most of the time, perhaps. But people compelled to act in a certain fashion because of who they are, of characteristics which cannot be changed, blurs those boundaries, for better or worse.

(Besides, homosexuality isn't an act, it's an attribute, like height and humanity.)

It can be both. Most gays, I imagine, are born with their sexual preference... certainly, given the current cultural climate, I don't see there are many people who would choose to be gay if they didn't have to. But would such a choice be unethical? I'm not gay, but there's nothing, theoretically, that prevents me from choosing to have sex with another man. Would that choice be unethical because I'm not genetically predisposed to same-sex attraction?

TheLonelySquire said:
However, when someone here or anywhere tells me that homosexuality is normal, I'm going to tell them that it's not.

Homosexuality is normal. Genetically, it occurs in a fairly regular percentage of this species, and many others, and has continued to manifest itself throughout our history. It is uncommon, but that doesn't make it abnormal for those in whom in does occur, any more than left-handedness or red hair.

Being tolerant doesn't mean accepting something that simply isn't so.

On this, we agree.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Cicero said: The argument is that you can care for, like, and have respect for someone whose moral choices you disagree with

And political choices too.... I would hope.

My friend may be a Republican, but they're still my friend.

This is nice to see.

As I said, I didn't let Kill/Heal's politics (which are pretty much 100% opposite of mine) get in the way of enjoying the story. I don't know how the author would feel about a Bush/Iraq supporter reading those novels, but if he's cool with it, then so am I.

 

[TerriO]

Cicero said:

The problem I had with Vanguard was that I wanted Pennington to die, and die painfully for willingly being a cheating, lying scumsucking weasel led around by a portion of his body that definitely wasn't his brain. And if he was supposed to be the most sympathetic character and eventually be held up as some kind of "hero" for the Pennington School, the series was only going to raise my blood pressure. To me, there's nothing redeemable about that character trait.

You don't think he can become a better person? I didn't like Pennington at all in Harbinger, but came to think very well of him by the end of Reap The Whirlwind, by which point he was considering his own growth, having realized what an awful person he had been.

To answer your question, I think he can try to become a better person, but that shadow of doubt will hang over his head for the entire time. He will never be completely trustworthy. To me, someone who is inherently willing to lie, cheat, and hurt others purely for the purpose of physical pleasure is not redeemable.

Therein lies the inherent difference for me, homosexuality on its own doesn't hurt another person. Adultery does. And if you're willing to hurt another person purely for the sake of your own pleasure, you're not trustworthy, and you're certainly not a heroic figure.

Again, totally IMO. YMMV.

 

[TerriO]

Babaganoosh said:

Cicero said: The argument is that you can care for, like, and have respect for someone whose moral choices you disagree with

And political choices too.... I would hope.

Nah, on that note, you're screwed.

 

[Therin of Andor]

mrs260 said:
I bet those naughty Klingons eat shellfish.

Only the gay adulterous ones.