But where do you draw the line between "Opinions with which I disagree" and "Opinions which make you a bad person if you hold them"?
I tend to classify really silly opinions as "loopy" rather than "evil", as long as they don't actually advocate violence or similar. OSC has loopy opinions, not immoral ones.
Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me
To me, you sound like the thought police.
In my moral code, we're entitled to think what we want, and nobody has any business condemning us based on our thoughts. The line is our actions: if we do something to someone as a result of our thoughts, that crosses the line.
I've said to a few gay friends that I personally think that homosexuality is gross; but I also think that broccoli is gross. The fact that I feel that way doesn't have anything to do with the way I view them as people, and certainly not how I treat them -- not any more than my distaste for broccoli affects my relationship with eaters of broccoli. And everyone I've talked about this attitude with seems to think it's a perfectly reasonable one to hold.
You and Scott Card are both entitled to your own opinions and moral beliefs. And I am entitled to call people who spout anti-homosexual hate speech homophobes on the internet.
Furthermore: if Scott Card's stated opinions on homosexuality were as.. mellow.. as yours, then you wouldn't see me caring quite so much. I'm not sure why you're defending yourself when I'm talking about Scott Card...
You don't want this recursion to apply to you too. Saying a person who says someone is terrible is terrible puts you next in line. Fortunately for both of us I don't think you're terrible, just a little too excited to dislike someone.
Okay, then follow the recursion back the other way. You should expect them to care as little about what you think as you care about what I think.
It seems either you believe your opposites have a more open mind than you do (so you can convince them despite your unconcern about being perceived as being like them), or you are writing opinions you hope your intended audience will like so they will like you. Perhaps you are writing for a judging God or people you consider to be your social superiors (people who can upvote.) You might reply that you write your opinions only for yourself, but because you wrote them here instead of a desktop text editor I think you want some other benefit.
I am not "open minded" towards homophobia, nor do I want to be, or believe anybody should be. I similarly don't think people should be open minded towards racism or genocide.
If this is close mindedness, then your statement "you believe your opposites have a more open mind than you do" does not concern me in the slightest. This is exactly the sentiment I was expressing earlier.
Is that because you are willing to fight it out? Or because you think you've got the people with the "wrong" opinions well out-numbered?
Use your imagination and consider circumstances where people with the "right" opinions are outnumbered, and considered dangerous. I _hope_ that I'd be saying the right things in Berlin 1935, or Richmond 1855, or Birmingham 1958, or Moscow 1920 - 1985. But I'm damn sure I'd be _concerned_ about the reaction to those remarks.
I mean I am not going to lose sleep over people thinking less of me for disliking homophobes. I won't be persuaded to modify my opinions by warnings that the people I dislike (homophobes) will dislike me in return.
And you've already dismissed the possibility that they actually have reasons for their opinions, or you wouldn't refer to them with a pejorative. So it looks like nothing could persuade to change your mind.
The problem with these "homophobes" is their closed minds, right?
I tend to classify really silly opinions as "loopy" rather than "evil", as long as they don't actually advocate violence or similar. OSC has loopy opinions, not immoral ones.