Vanguard controversy

[Turbo]

TheLonelySquire said:
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.

Matthew 7:1-3, 5

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?...You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Would you prefer to be judged by the saints, as in 1 Corinthians 6, or by someone quite self-righteous, as you are?

 

[Maestro]

Allyn Gibson said:
Seriously, what the hell does the Bible have to do with living today? It's shit as history, it's piss-poor as theology. It's a poor prism for interpreting life in today's world.

In my vast experience as a Christian, I have discovered that only the best pastors are capable of making it relevant to today's people. They also tend to preach on tolerance, love, being kind to one another, forgiveness, taking care of each other, and those good things. I have never heard a good pastor preach on the topic of "gays are bad because it says so in the Bible."

 

[Cicero]

Maestro said:
Conservative Christians don't actual read the Gospels of Christ. They are more interested in the Letters of St. Paul. They glorify the teachings of Paul at the expense of the teachings of Christ. It's why mainline Christian denominations claim the fundamentalists and evangelicals preach a different Christ. They do, Paul of Tarses Christ.

Gandhi noted this when he studied Jesus, who had a profound influence on his philosophies, most notably satyagraha.

 

[Cicero]

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

What pro-Iraq politics?

 

[William Leisner]

Cicero said:

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

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. One can view another's actions as wrong, but still treat them with sincere honor as a person.

An example would be of Gandhi and the British Raj. He morally disagreed with the British, but harbored no contempt or ill will toward them. He loved them as he loved himself.

Even strenuous disagreement and contempt do not necessarily go together.

I am sure you are not comparing our friend, the lonely squire, to Gandhi. Nor are you comparing the repressive occupational government and military of the greatest empire of its day to a bunch of dudes kisses and throwing a colorful parade every once in a while. Cuz that would be silly.

I'm not sure, however, if you are claiming that the lonely, lonely squire is making his anti-gay comments with "honor." Because "God hates you, and I oppose you, and I can't get over three fucking paragraphs in a 100,000 word novel because people like you are portrayed like normal sentient beings" doesn't scream "honor" to me...

 

[Cicero]

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

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. One can view another's actions as wrong, but still treat them with sincere honor as a person.

An example would be of Gandhi and the British Raj. He morally disagreed with the British, but harbored no contempt or ill will toward them. He loved them as he loved himself.

Even strenuous disagreement and contempt do not necessarily go together.

I am sure you are not comparing our friend, the lonely squire, to Gandhi. Nor are you comparing the repressive occupational government and military of the greatest empire of its day to a bunch of dudes kisses and throwing a colorful parade every once in a while. Cuz that would be silly.

While such comparisons aren't necessarily silly (simile would be), I wasn't doing so here, no. I was responding to your more general expression of curiosity.

I'm not sure, however, if you are claiming that the lonely, lonely squire is making his anti-gay comments with "honor." Because "God hates you, and I oppose you, and I can't get over three fucking paragraphs in a 100,000 word novel because people like you are portrayed like normal sentient beings" doesn't scream "honor" to me...

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.

 

[Smiley]

Allyn Gibson said:

Smiley said:
I find it curious that just the sexual sins are being singled out. If you're condemning T'Prynn and Lurqal for their relationship, even though they are aliens, then consistency demands that you also condemn the Tholians for their gross violation of "Thou shalt not kill."

Excuse me.

What sense does it make to judge non-humans on the basis of a morality defined by a human mythology two thousand years old? Judging T'Prynn by the writings of Paul makes no sense. Judging Pennington by Biblical standards ignores the sociological fact that sexual mores have changed as the times have changed, and sexual mores will change further into the future as science continues to increase the recreative aspect of sexuality while minimizing the procreative aspect of sexuality.

Allyn, as my second paragraph said, I personally look to fiction for stories, not guidelines for life. I don't assume that every character acts in accordance with my values and beliefs.

With my first paragraph, I was actually trying to comment on the desensitization to violence and killing we have in America. If someone finds both killing and lesbian relationships morally objectionable, then why does reading about or seeing the latter cause more of a reaction than the latter (this is rhetorical, by the way)?

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

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."

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. By the way, if there is a more correct way to verbally differentiate between the act and the people, please let me know.

 

[Trent Roman]

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. 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.

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. 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. Since it's ethically neutral (unlike, say, potentially maladaptive genetic inclinations to alcoholism), the bigots are objecting to the person being the person... and such this attempt to distinguish between person and act comes across as more of an exercise in sophistry than anything else.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[David Mack]

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.

 

[Christopher]

Cicero said:
One reason a person might be surprised is that there is no evidence of continuing human homosexuality in Star Trek. 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. I mean, what possible mechanism could there be to bring about such a cessation of existence? Why would anyone expect it to happen?

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.

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.

 

[flandry84]

As a race, wev'e got a long,long way to go.

 

[Turtletrekker]

^Amen to that.

 

[Steve Roby]

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.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

tenmei said:
If you're maintaining the moral high ground on this because it says the bible (and thus, God) told you so, then I have to presume you're also in favour of slavery, never come into contact with a woman whilst she's on her period, never work on Sunday, don't approach an alter in a church if you have a sight impediment, never cut your hair and never blaspheme.

Oh, and never eat shellfish.

Because if you don't believe in slavery, cut your hair, come into a contact with a woman whilst she's on her period, work on a Sunday and approach the alter at church if you have a sight impediment and eat shellfish, then you're a huge sinner.

Especially the shellfish thing, because God hates us eating them shellfish, and specifically says that it's an abomination.

I acknowledge when I sin and try not to repeat mine. If everyone did this (including adulterers and homosexuals) we'd all be on even ground. Now if they don't believe they are sinning that's fine too. They just aren't right with God.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

David cgc said:

TheLonelySquire said:
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.

Some of us disagree on that interpretation of God's will.

And I respect your opinion. As you should respect mine.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

William Leisner said:

TheLonelySquire said:
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.

Funny... I thought Jesus said things like "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also remember him making friends with prostitutes and (*gasp*) Roman tax collectors, and making outrageous claims like Samaritans could be decent people. Really, the only "intolerance" he had, as I recall, was against the Pharisees who thought being "religious" made them better than anyone else.

But, hey, if God wants us to be intolerant, fine: let's burn down the Red Lobster!!

From what I hear, Red Lobster stinks anyway.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Sci said:

TheLonelySquire said:
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.

Then surely you don't mind us telling you that you're wrong to be opposed to homosexuality. After all -- we're just doing God's Will.

If you commit homosexual sin you are going against the will of God. Plain and simple. But do you really care?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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.

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.)

 

[TheLonelySquire]

William Leisner said:

Cicero said:
Calls of homophobia in response to negative comments about homosexuality, even when there is no evidence of fear or contempt, however, is.

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."

I don't oppose homosexuals as people. The homosexual act is the sin. They are no better or worse people than heterosexuals, as heterosexuals also sin daily.

 

[Maestro]

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. In fact, from what I gather, one of the adulterous characters in the book is striving to stop doing that, so the story is about the struggle. That actually sounds quite noble to me.

Furthermore, the Bible, even in its most conservative interpretations, only applies to humans. Vulcans and Klingons are not bound by the Bible as they are not descendants of Adam. They are neither bound by Levitican law, nor was it fulfilled for them by Christ. They are also not subject to the instructions on how to be Christian as given by St. Paul.

Assuming that there is one true God who made the universe, unless He has given specific instructions on sexuality to other species like He has to humans through the OT and St. Paul, it is improper to hold them to our moral code on sexuality. It is illogical to apply the whole Judeo-Christian law to a species that are not descendend from a Judeo-Christian species (and for our purposes in this post, all of humanity is considered Judeo-Christian).