[sho_hn]

Personally, I can't: The book may not be diminished by itself, but my enjoyment of it certainly is, because I keep searching for evidence of the author's personal beliefs and/or agenda in the text, disrupting immersion.

We're talking about someone who writes stuff like this:

"The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.

[...]

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

(Source: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html)

And there's a lot of similar-level, oddly familiar sounding looneyness in his writings on various other political topics as well. It's perhaps most disturbing - or fascinating - that a writer as articulate would be content to be such a cliché. At times I wonder if it's all an act.

[chc]

I find it interesting that the first passage offends you so much. I support gay rights and would really like to see gender taken out of the law altogether, but Card's philosophy there seems unarguably true. People have lots of natural impulses that society expects them to control, so whether homosexuality is natural or not doesn't matter. Homosexuality would be no less acceptable in my eyes if it were a choice.

The difference between my outlook and Card's is in how we define "acceptable." I say, homosexuality is not harmful, so it should be allowed. Card uses a different measuring stick for his morality. That's all.

[sho_hn]

I actually don't find it offensive (though I obviously disagree with it) as much as I find it oddly recognizable: What he's trying to do throughout the entire linked text is proliferate the notion that homosexuality is in fact a choice, in that homosexuals can supposedly chose to control their sinful desires at no greater personal cost (but possibly even personal gain), whether those desires be genetically predisposed or not.

He does not cite any scientific knowledge to support this position, but he does take the time to point out that science can't prove him wrong yet (via a, quote, "science has barely scratched the surface" statement).

Of course he's also not giving any explanation for exactly why homosexuality is supposed to be sinful in the first place.

That entire angle is tired, old, trite, familiar. It's also stopping short of thinking things through fully, in the service of his personal agenda: If science has only scratched the surface so far, then it follows that what he takes for granted in his own text has to be called into question as well. Yet there is no uncertainty about his position in his text; he is very sure of himself.

And that's the part that really makes me wonder. This guy seems too intelligent to buy into half-assed argumentation of this kind - so what makes him write it?

Admittedly this does run the danger of opening up the pandora's box of the entire religion topic. I just can't for the life of me understand how someone rationally thinking could be satisfied with non-explanations like "To act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the judgments of God." (also from the text).

Beyond that I agree with your post, i.e. the genetic question not actually being relevant to me when it comes to whether homosexuality is acceptable.

[CWuestefeld]

proliferate the notion that homosexuality is in fact a choice, in that homosexuals can supposedly chose to control their sinful desires

There are certainly a lot of behaviors that we're (as a species if not as an individual) predisposed to, that are viewed as socially unacceptable. For example, the benefits in a Darwinian framework of extramarital affairs are quite well established. It's to a males genetic advantage to have as many sexual partners as possible, and generally men do have such latent desires. Yet society condemns those who act on those desires, even though they're perfectly natural. Why can't we say that homosexuality is similar: something that an individual may be predisposed to for whatever reason, but if he wants to avoid society's scarlet letter, he must repress those desires? [1]

Of course he's also not giving any explanation for exactly why homosexuality is supposed to be sinful in the first place.

I'm not going to dig up citations for this because I'm not interested in proving it. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient text in the Christian Bible that someone who builds his moral codes from what he, personally, reads in its pages can reasonably come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. [2]

[1] Not that I believe that a homosexual should have to repress those desires; I'm merely arguing that this is an internally consistent moral system.

[2] I also acknowledge that there are places in the Bible that might contradict that, or at least temper its severity. My point is that a reasonable person, weighing many passages in the Bible, might come to that conclusion.

[chc]

Besides the Biblical argument (which is indeed iffy), Card is a Mormon. The Mormon prophets have been very clear in their condemnation of homosexuality.

[Daniel_Newby]

"This guy seems too intelligent to buy into half-assed argumentation of this kind - so what makes him write it?"

He's a Mormon! Two of the core dogmas of that religion are that (1) procreation is a duty, and (2) raising children well in a family is a duty. What you have to understand is that Mormons have remarkably low hypocrisy and cynicism. They give a lot of public lip service to procreation and family values, and then they go home, when nobody is looking, and make lots of babies and raise big families.

So they take it rather personally when a fringe political group (the tiny but loud homosexual lobby) tries to indoctrinate kindergartners that "it's my body and I can do whatever feels good", or hands out fisting kits in high schools. Mormons don't object to this because they are so fearful that their minds are diseased (phobic), but rather out of the belief that those activities do not make a strong basis for a society. (And they have a point. San Francisco's inverted population pyramid has even the secular authorities alarmed. If SF wasn't fascinating enough to attract enough a flood of immigrants, it would be Detroit with queers.)

Mormons are also very big on conscious self control of all appetites and lusts in the service of long-term goals. They don't just say "smoking is bad, mmmkay", they don't smoke. (The tobacco lobby does not diagnose this as the disease of tobaccophobia and hold My Lungs, My Choice rallies.) I suspect that this is the actual reason the Mormons and queers are so allergic to each other: the Mormons tend toward a very low time preference (long planning horizon) and the queers a high time preference (live in the moment). It is almost a law of nature that someone with high time preference will throw a hissy fit when lectured on moral choice by someone with low time preference.