peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (07/13/84)
After several months of being unsubscribed to this group, I started reading it again (on Sophie Quigley's suggestion) and found the material much more interesting than before (thanks Sophie). In particular, articles concerning the "legitimacy", moral and otherwise, of homosexuality have grown somewhat in sophistication (at least the attackers no longer post anonymously). While I can't truly empathize with the gay/lesbian community, not being a member of it, I hope I can offer a useful observation on this debate. It has been asked if the homosexuals mentioned by Steve Dyer contributed to society *because* they were homosexuals. Possibly they did (more on this later), but even if they didn't, the persecution they suffered surely reduced the amount that they contributed-- some are energized by having to fight for their *ideas*, but ad hominem attacks are hard to be enthused by. Intolerance reduces a society's standard of living, because some of its members are not allowed to be fully productive. So perhaps you will agree with me that natural diversity should be at least tolerated, so that people of various groups are given the chance to be fully productive. Is there value in *promoting* diversity? In a society forced to undergo rapid change due to technological advancement, we appear to be in need of, as they say, "new ideas": the economic system can't be said to be working when there's 11% unemployment, relationships can't be said to be working when there's a 50% divorce rate. These are not just theoretical considerations-- they make differences in peoples' day-to-day lives... to whether or not people can feed their children. New ideas, in whatever field, are inhibited by a climate of orthodoxy. New ideas, in whatever field, are encouraged by a climate of openness and curiousity. I do not argue for blind acceptance, but for an enlightened self- interest that realizes that novel perspectives may turn out to be useful and should at least be considered. I am angered that some people, in their desire to have people think as they do (or out of a Machiavellian desire to exploit), have deprived me of ideas that would make my life better. It is sad that acceptance of blacks did not set a precedent of universal tolerance. I look to acceptance of homosexuals as another step in the promotion of universal tolerance of differing views. I believe that is one contribution that their activities currently make. More importantly, I look to the gay/lesbian community for new views on relationships and the role of sex in them. I think, now, much of its energy is devoted to self-defense (that's certainly the case in this newsgroup). On the other hand, my limited exposure to feminist literature indicates that lesbian experience is occasionally drawn upon as a source of ideas-- perhaps a topic that someone more qualified than I could follow up. p. rowley, U. Toronto