Brainwaves of Sken

John C. Wright, author of some science fiction books, wrote a post entitled More Diversity and More Perversity in the Future! regarding the CEO of the Sci-Fi network’s statement that he intended to have more same-sex partners in otherwise-normative relationships on the network.

It has made quite a stir, even though it happened months ago weeks ago, because his vitriol is really pretty fantastic.

There were many rebuttals, including one from jer_, but one of the most interesting ones comes from a guy who claims to represent The Elders of Sodom, where he writes a lengthy rebuttal. Frankly, as someone extremely familiar with verbosity, I think think it reads a little like a college psych textbook, but his summations near the end are pretty informative and true, if not written compellingly. For instance:

Whatever particular set of principles we adopt or construct for ourselves in the “post-conventional” stage of moral development, to us homosexuality is not “normal” as far as percentages go, but is entirely “normal” for that percentage who identify as homosexual, just as ginger hair is “normal” for those with ginger hair (assuming they don’t dye it regularly such that their “normal” colour is, say, mauve.) The Elders of Sodom don’t care. Normality is utterly irrelevant in an ethics based largely on empathy and reason rather than conformity to an imagined social/natural/divine order. As far as the Elders of Sodom are concerned whether our sexual behaviour is normal or not is neither here nor there, just as our hair colour is. It is none of your business, Mr Wright.

Aware of the observed facts of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom, the Elders of Sodom also know that homosexuality is entirely “natural” in the sense of “occuring within nature”. It is simply somewhat less than usual as a behaviour pattern — which doesn’t matter a jot. Some will argue that one is born homosexual, the deviance no more “unnatural” than ginger hair, but some of us see no need to defend homosexuality on that basis. Even if one becomes homosexual through a gradual development of sexual tastes, the deviance is no more “unnatural” than if one develops a taste for bletted medlars and a dislike for apples. It is no more nor less than a variance of preferences. And to repeat myself: this is none of your business, Mr Wright.

If you do read the rebuttal and you don’t want to go through the whole thing, I suggest you look for the italicised comment (originally from Wright): “I’d like someone, anyone, to explain to me how my culture reached a position where a public entertainment company can be criticized for failing to contribute to the moral decay of the land, and that the criticism would be taken seriously, and the company would cringe and promise to do better.”

That bit is good stuff.

My favorite is this:

Which is to say, where any wide-spread moral dicta is called into question, one may not agree with the criticism, may even consider the problem it is asserting non-existent; it is, however, only the most rudimentary of ethical judgements to consider that one may be wrong about the reality and severity of the problem and that one should therefore seek to establish the reality and severity of the problem. This sort of dismissal is, as far as the Elders of Sodom are concerned, an abrogation of ethical judgement at the most basic level. Your deficiency does not just result in bad ethics, Mr Wright. It is unethical in and of itself.

~ by Skennedy on August 14, 2009.

Posted in Uncategorized