"Homophobic" gets bandied about to the point of losing its meaning. "Unreasoning fear/antipathy towards homosexuals/homosexuality" is what the dictionary spat out, and I suspect Card would say 1) it's not "unreasoning" 2)"antipathy towards homosexuality" != "evil."

I agree that the application of the word "homophobe" does not fit with its etymology. Are these people actually afraid of homosexuals, like a person with aracnophobia is afraid of spiders, or do they just disagree with some social positions, like the appropriate context and meaning of state endorsement and support for a relationship? It seems that anyone who doesn't take the envelope the gay rights people are pushing is suddenly an illogical homophobe, afraid that buttsex is going to bite and poison them.

Even an argument that homosexuality altogether is immoral and should not be socially acceptable behavior is not the same thing as being afraid of persons that perform homosexual acts; it's merely ostracizing the behavior, as one may ostracize a person for meth use, though it'd be silly to call one that supports meth prohibition a dopephobe just because he doesn't think meth use should become a social norm.

You can dislike a behavior without fearing it, and you can have rational reasons for that dislike. The term "homophobe" is applied to try and stop people from criticizing the gay rights agenda by labeling them as irrational bigots if any protest is raised.

I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would consider it antipathy towards homosexuality.

You're absolutely right. My comment probably implied that I didn't think Card is homophobic. Rather, I meant to get across that I don't think he minds.

I'd need to read the whole article before knowing for sure how to react to that paragraph, as it appears to be part of a reductio ad absurdum -- that one would have to claim that society ought to have no laws whatsoever limiting sexual behavior in order to refute his point. This might explain his emphasis on laws, which usually boils down to an argument lauding the democratic process that got us those laws, while taking a more skeptical view on the laws themselves.

I think the issue of employment discrimination is a bit of a straw man. If an employee isn't working out he/she will be fired eventually for some reason. If a firm's corporate culture is homophobic, chances are there will be some technicality that allows for the firing of an individual in spite of any laws restricting hiring/firing reasons. I think this applies to all such laws "protecting" any group.

It is no way a straw man argument. A straw man argument is when you invent or restate the other person original argument.

In the interview he specifically stated that he supported laws that protected people from being fired based on race but NOT homosexuality.

There are certainly legitimate reasons to not support laws protecting people from discrimination. If Card had been against them in GENERAL and I had cherry-picked his opposition to those laws protecting sexual orientation, THEN it may have construed a straw man argument. But I did no such thing. I did not misinterpret his position; he was not opposed to such laws in general, but ONLY those regarding sexual orientation.