Hal Duncan's Open Letter To John C. Wright

A couple of days ago, I left a comment in response to this post by John Wright. I also posted my comment on “Alas.”

I’m very glad I saved a copy on “Alas,” since Wright later deleted all the comments on his post, and later still simply deleted his entire post. (He’s also closed his livejournal to comments from anyone but those he has friended.) That’s all fine with me (although I hate to see someone delete comments he has not himself written) — everyone has a right to set the terms of discussion on their own livejournal or blog, up to and including deleting posts you’d rather not have Wikipedia link to.¹

I admit, I’m miffed that John wrote this in a follow-up post:

Those of you who tried to draw the distinction between incest and homosexuality, you either limited your comments to a certain type of incest (as with children) or described it as illicit due to genetic defects produced, but in no case that I saw did anyone actually answer the question asked

John appears to have forgotten my comment — even though he answered it with a three-point response (which was deleted before I could respond, alas). I answered the question asked, did it in detail, and did so in an extremely respectful manner (even though I don’t think John had behaved in a respectful manner towards others). And I didn’t limit my answer to children, or even mention genetic defects.

Anyhow, writer Hal Duncan has posted an “open letter” responding to John Wright’s anti-gay post. Hal is working in a similar over-the-top prose style to John’s post, although I think Hal’s prose is better. I particularly liked this passage:

Well, let’s start with the assumptions that will likely lead many to not respond with anything remotely resembling the rational answers you claim you want. If you want your questions to be taken seriously then you would do well to start by asking them without the arrant nonsense of paranoid fantasies in which the SyFy Channel has “recoiled in craven fear and trembling” before the intimidatory might of GLAAD’s “homosex activists” (aka the Elders of Sodom, Media Division.) You would do well to start with the premise that the head of the SyFy Channel’s public commitment to not simply presenting more homosexuality but to presenting it as a non-issue might actually be born of a genuine belief that this is an ethical thing to do.

We’re sure you’re aware that other people can and do have different opinions. You may reject the validity of those opinions, but it would hardly seem rational to reject their existence. Actually, come to think of it, you don’t actually seem that rational, so maybe our conviction is unwarranted. Let us assure you then: we, the Elders of Sodom do have those opinions, trust me, and many within our ranks hold such opinions not because they are themselves homosexual, (we are open to all and sundry, welcoming even to the Brethren of Breeders,) but simply because they have a trait we refer to as “empathy.” The ethics we hold to among the Elders of Sodom is, generally speaking, based primarily on this “empathy,” and therefore rejects homophobia for the same reasons it rejects racism, misogyny, and all other forms of prejudice.

This is how it actually is, Mr Wright. People do actually disagree with you. Not just the actual sodomites like myself, but the Sapphic Sisterhood, the Hamite Alliance, the League of Heathens and Infidels, Atheists Anonymous, a whole panoply of progressive thinkers, aligned and unaligned, to whom your rant reads as the ethically repugnant ravings of a sociopath, given that it has so little concern for aforesaid “empathy”. Let me repeat that, Mr Wright. People do actually disagree with you. Not because they’re faggots who like the homosex. Not because they’ve been cowed into submission by the faggots who like the homosex. But because they see the faggots who like the homosex as human beings deserving of empathy, see the abjection of them as profoundly unethical — stupid and cruel to the point of socially dysfunctional.

1. On the other hand, since the post was posted in public, I think others have a fair use right to quote it in order to facilitate discussion of the issues John brought up. For that reason, I’ve quoted John’s post here. [↩]