Tuesday’s post about the idea of homosexuality as a defect led to a great deal of discussion, as expected. I also received more criticism for that post than anything I’ve done in a long time. Almost universally, that criticism came from friends of Stone.

This doesn’t invalidate the criticism, and I completely understand feeling protective of one’s friends. Protectiveness of one’s friends is, in fact, one of the reasons I wrote the post to begin with.

So I’ve been doing a mental debrief. I try to do this fairly regularly. Some of the core questions I’m looking at are:

• Did this post accomplish anything good?
• Did it do harm?
• Did the good it accomplished outweigh the harm?
• Could I have written it differently so as to increase the former and/or decrease the latter?

I think the answer to all four questions is yes. For today, I wanted to focus primarily on that fourth question.

The Title – I titled the blog post after the axiom in Lavie Tidhar’s story. I think that was a mistake. My goal was to use the things Stone had written as a staring point, and to move to a broader conversation about prejudice and bigotry against homosexuals and same-sex marriage. The title kept the focus on one individual and lessened the focus on that broader discussion.

“You” vs. “You” – Similarly, about halfway through the post, I switched to statements like “you believe your sense of discomfort and offense is important enough to continue systematically denying legal status and protection to an entire class of human beings?” But my writing made it unclear that I was addressing the broader, generic “you” instead of continuing to focus on Stone specifically. This is something I could have fixed rather easily with a line like, “Dear world — if you believe blah blah blah…”

Genetic Defect – This phrase came not from Stone, but from Tidhar. My reading of Stone’s words matched up to the phrase, but after further discussion, reading, and some e-mail chats, I believe I was wrong. Stone was not claiming that homosexuality is a genetic defect. A defect, yes, but attributing it to genetics was part of a hypothetical posed by someone else. I don’t know if this makes any significant difference, but it was a mistake, and I wanted to own that.

Comment Moderation – I received feedback that the tone of the comments was too negative, especially on LiveJournal. I was asked to delete them, challenged for not responding to them all with the Smackdown Hammer of Whoopass and Moderation, and told that I was tacitly endorsing/encouraging attacks by not doing so.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never deleted comments except in cases of spam and blatant trolling. Looking back, my treatment of comments in this post was very similar to what it’s been in other posts. Likewise, the tone of the comments was similar to other posts … the difference being that this time those comments were directed at someone’s friend.

I do need to revise and post/bookmark my moderation policy. In general, I will moderate, but I try to do so lightly. Hell, I’ve allowed comments from angry “men’s rights” advocates decrying rape as a weapon women use against men. Sometimes I simply ignore these comments. I don’t believe that means I’m tacitly endorsing their nonsense.

Like I said, I understand feeling protective. But I’m also uncomfortable that apparently this sort of comment was acceptable when it was about strangers in previous posts, but gets challenged now that they’re about a friend. This is something I’ll continue to think about.

Speaking Up to Power – There’s a theory in comedy that you should always try to direct your jibes upward. Lampooning someone in a position of higher power is funny and socially useful. Doing the same to someone in a powerless position is not funny, and not cool.

While I don’t believe this is a perfect analogy, I’d be a fool not to recognize that in the blogging world, I currently have a much broader readership and much more “power.” This is something I need to think about more, and something I hope to keep in mind when writing future blog posts.

#

This is far from everything, but this follow-up is already longer than the original post, and there’s only so much my brain can process at once. None of this changes my anger, or my belief that it’s important to speak out and publicly challenge prejudice and bigotry. But one of the ways I try to improve as a writer and a human being is to try to understand when and how I could have done something better.

I’m working on a follow-up to yesterday’s blog post, but I was at a booksigning last night and didn’t get home until 10, meaning I haven’t had time to finish it.

So instead, I figured I’d share an embarrassing story from the signing.

I had a great time. Nicola’s Books brought in me, Sarah Zettel, and Jacqueline Carey. We chatted for about an hour about everything from e-books to outlines to keeping characters on a short leash. (Some of us more literally than others…) There was discussion and banter and laughing, and as far as I could tell, a good time was had by all.

Then it was booksigning time. Sarah and I watched the crowd swarm to Jacqueline, but there was some spillover to us as well. Yay! I signed a respectable number of books, and then toward the end, two women came up to me with their books to be signed. One was wearing a “Double Tap” Zombieland T-shirt. I glanced at the shirt, smiled, and said, “Nice!”

I opened up the first book, then froze as I realized exactly what I had just said while looking at this woman’s chest.

“Oh, crap. I’m sorry, I just realized how slimy that sounded!”

Did you know that baldness means your entire scalp blushes? I’m told I turned a quite lovely shade of red.

They were both very understanding, and there was much laughter at my expense, which was fine. But it’s been a long time since I’ve jammed my foot that far down my throat…

The New York Times has a slideshow of same-sex marriage photos here which show a tremendous amount of joy and happiness. But not everyone is happy about this. Hell, my state passed a constitutional amendment stating that, “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union…”

I don’t get it. I’ve never understood why some people feel that same-sex couples are so dangerous. As I tried yet again to wrap my mind around it, I thought of Lavie Tidhar’s story The School, which includes the following line:

“Homosexuality is a genetic defect. This is known as the Eric James Stone Axiom.”

Stone is a Nebula-winning author and, from what I can tell, a fairly intelligent human being. So I went looking for his own words. I didn’t expect to be persuaded, but I wanted something to help me understand where he and others like him are coming from. I found the following:

Homosexuality is a defect.

That doesn’t mean homosexual people aren’t human, of course. Neither does it mean they should be treated as less human than those who are heterosexual. There are people who are homosexual but who have gone on to do great things … But no matter how much we love and appreciate homosexual people, it doesn’t change the fact that they do not have something that, by design, they are supposed to have.

Stone also has a blog post in which he compares the redefinition of marriage to allow same-sex partners to the redefinition of marriage to allow people to marry barnyard animals. He asks:

Why are you offended? Why should you be upset that a sexual practice you do not care for is included in the definition of something you care about? Isn’t that exactly what you are doing by demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual couples?

Arguing for an unchanging definition of marriage is ridiculously ignorant of history and the ways marriage has evolved. Should wives still be property? Should we continue to limit marriage to people of the same race? Should grown men be allowed to marry children?

The only explanation Stone gives for homosexuality being a genetic defect is the reproductive argument. “The reproductive organs weren’t put there just to provide sexual pleasure, after all.”

I know a number of homosexual couples with children, either the biological offspring of one partner, or adopted. But maybe those don’t count?

[ETA: My friend Catherine says Stone is describing homosexuality as a defect, but not necessarily a genetic one. I’m basing my description on his comment, “If a child’s genes showed it was going to be born homosexual, I see nothing morally wrong with changing that.” However, it’s worth reading Stone’s post and deciding for yourself. I might be off-base here.]

Stone’s view of homosexuality as a genetic defect doesn’t come from evidence of chromosomal damage. So does that mean they simply fail to live up to Stone’s personal beliefs about genetic purity? Bad science aside, his idea that we should “fix” people who don’t conform to his standards is, frankly, terrifying: “I don’t think correcting those defects through medical science … is problematic.”

I’m all for modern medicine. If you want to grow me a new pancreas, please do! But the idea that you get to decide which sexual preferences are defective and “fix” them is abhorrent. (Stone explains that this is only okay if you’re making homosexuals straight. The reverse is “morally wrong.”)

I don’t get it. The flaws in these arguments are so glaring to me. You’re upset because you don’t want anyone to change the definition of something you care about. I can follow that much. But you believe your sense of discomfort and offense is important enough to continue systematically denying legal status and protection to an entire class of human beings? That is obscene.

• If you personally find same-sex relationships distasteful, fine. There are certain sexual activities I find distasteful. Which is why I don’t do them.
• Your religious beliefs are your business. They are not and should not be the basis for law. If you use them as justification to discriminate against others, don’t be upset when others decide you’re an asshole.
• Reproduction is not the be-all and end-all of human civilization. If you want kids, great! I’ve got two, and I love ’em dearly. But you don’t get to force your choice on everyone.
• “Genetic defect” is a phrase with actual meaning. Here’s a hint: the definition isn’t based on your personal/religious beliefs.

My congratulations to the newlyweds in New York. I look forward to the day when same-sex couples throughout the United States are able to share in that joy.

Announcement the First: I’ll be at Schuler Books in Okemos tonight starting at 7:00, where I’ll be reading, chatting, and signing books. If you’re seeing this, it means you’re invited and should immediately DROP ALL OTHER PLANS and get out there!

Announcement the Second: On Friday, I’ll be at Festibooks, as part of the Ann Arbor Art Festival, along with folks like Tobias Buckell, Saladin Ahmed, Sarah Zettel, and more.

Announcement the Third: Eventually, my books will go out of print, at which point I intend to get them posted for sale as e-books. So I was thinking about cover art, and came up with the following new redesign scheme. What do you think?

I learned to shoot a rifle roughly twenty-five years ago. I was an NRA member for a while, learning to target shoot and getting pretty good at it. At Boy Scout camp, I was actually involved in a marksmanship contest one summer. (I was disqualified because my technique was illegal. Sure, I put the bullet dead center through the bullseye, but because I steadied my rifle wrong, it didn’t count. Not that I’m still bitter or anything.)

That said, I would like to propose a slight rewording to the Second Amendment.

“[T]he right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless you demonstrate that you are a complete and utter dumbass when it comes to gun safety.”

Take, for example, a state senator who pulls a loaded handgun with no safety and points it at a reporter’s chest.[1. Disclaimer: as usual, you should probably avoid reading the comments.]

“Oh, it’s so cute,” Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer. She was sitting on a leather couch in a lounge, just outside the Senate chamber.

She showed off the laser sighting by pointing the red beam at the reporter’s chest. The gun has no safety, she said, but there was no need to worry.

“I just didn’t have my hand on the trigger,” she said.

Gun safety rule number one, straight from the NRA (hardly a bastion of liberal gun-haters), is “ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.”

I’m not afraid of guns. I’m afraid of people who think guns are toys. Who think they’re cute. Who don’t have the first f***ing clue how to treat a gun. Who think guns are status symbols to be worn like those flag lapel pins.

Lori Klein, you scare the hell out of me. Not because you carry a gun. But because, despite your “informal training,” you obviously haven’t learned to respect them. Per my new Dumbass Amendment, please turn in your little pink .380 until such time as you can demonstrate that you’re no longer a dumbass.

I recognize that comments on this one could get heated fast, so I’ll be moderating as needed. Discussion and debate are fine, but please keep it civil.

—