dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Creedence? I *love* Creedence...) (07/04/84)
Re: Dammit Dyer!_______________________________________________________________ CLYDE: Don't you think you could be kind of an embarrassment to the campaign? ANDY: How's that, Clyde? CLYDE: Well, I hear you're gay! ANDY: That's right - and I hear you're black. CLYDE: Yeah, but that's NORMAL! ANDY: Didn't used to be. --_Doonesbury_ Well, I suppose I'll just jump into this discussion and really confuse things. Not only am I a Dyer like Steve (Hi Steve! Send my regards to Jim and Ron and all the other nifty people on bbncca!), I'm also a DECie like Ken (Hi Ken! Haven't you found SOAPBOX yet?). The topic, as introduced by Ken Arndt, is whether or not homosexuals can morally justify their behavior. Ken doesn't believe they have: > The blacks could appeal to an innate sense of right and fair play....The rea- > son, the appeal that changed the lives of blacks in the last hundred years or > so was a MORAL one. Homosexuals have no such moral leg to stand on....YOUR > REPLY HAS TO BE COUCHED IN A MORAL ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE....something to match > the moral tradition of the West. I think that homosexuals can appeal to the same "innate sense of right and fair play" that blacks have. Both groups consist of human beings, thus they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. One issue at hand is that the rights of homosexuals are being violated. Plenty of room for moral arguments there. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. What I intend to do in this ar- ticle is draw parallels between the struggle for blacks to attain their equal role in society and the struggle for homosexuals to do the same: At first, black people weren't regarded as people by the West; rather they were regarded as advanced apes. From this they took a step up to "inferi- or race" status (right below the Jews). Finally, the more enlightened Western- ers realized that black people *are* people and thus have the same certain in- alienable rights as the rest of humanity. Homosexuals are people too; there's little question about that, so they have an advantage that blacks didn't have at first. An important step, because humans identify with humans (see allusions to the Golden Rule in an article I sent yesterday - also, meditate on the two meanings of the word `kind'). There are a few stumbling blocks to overcome, though: mainstream heterosexuals will not readily identify with those they consider horrible deviants. Coming out helps things a bit: imagine if everyone who was gay came out of the closet on the same day. Suddenly the mainstream would have to deal with the reality that the boss/grandchild/teacher/mail-carrier/nice-old-man- from-down-the-street is a homosexual and, by God, not some kind of horrible pervert in a black leather jacket! Those who have come out of the closet have certainly helped me understand that homosexuals are people like everyone else. Perhaps we need something like a National Day of Coming Out? So we can, by use of the Golden Rule, get a good moral argument going here. "Isn't it awful that two people in love can't get married?" More on moral arguments after I finish drawing my parallels. Okay, in recent years (late '50's on), the black struggle for equality took an activist turn. Demonstrations, including the most significant acts of non-violence in the United States (thanks to Martin Luther King); militant groups; political action. Then came the '60's, new ideals of sex roles and such, and here we are in the '80's with gay activism. Ken tells us that gay activism isn't going to get anywhere without the moral context that black activism has. I agree, but I don't agree that the context isn't there: The "innate sense," the Golden Rule; it's there, we just have to help everyone see it. Another moral argument has to be made to justify homosexual behavior (as Ken put it). This is seperate from the "innate sense" argument (which, I hope, I've covered well). This one's a bit trickier, and I've gone around a few times in SOAPBOX (DEC's version of net.flame + net.politics + net.women + net.motss + net.etc.) with this question: What's wrong with homosexuality? In my experience, nobody has ever come up with an answer. Attempts to answer it usually take this form: Gay Is Not Good Because Gay Is Not Good. There's also the "Bible says it's awful" argument. SOAPBOXers have also sup- plied the following arguments: o What's wrong with homosexuality? What's *right* with homo- sexuality? o Why do you ask? Are you some kind of homo, or what? o You have to get off your partner's a** to kiss him. I find that the "what's wrong with homosexuality" question can get some people to start thinking; but it infuriates most people because they really have no answer that I can't refute. People get uneasy when they have no sup- port for their beliefs. The best way to get people to answer the question is to counsel them to the point that they realize themselves that they have no answer to it. Mass counseling, unfortunately, is impractical. For now, I don't know of a way to get large groups of people to realize that they can't prove that anything's wrong with homosexuality. I do think that the main misconception is that homosexuality is a perversion just like sex with animals and children; and I do think that we should take every opportunity to counter this misconception with the argument that homosexuality _per_se_ in- volves consenting adults while the aforementioned perversions do not. Now as for what's right with homosexuality, we do have some moral argu- ments at our disposal: o It's consistent with nonsexist thinking. (This is how I got involved with these issues in the first place!) Briefly, a culture that is aware that not all relationships between MsOTSS are platonic is more likely to be aware that not all relationships between MsOTOS are sexual. Lots of good argu- ments here, actually, but not all fit in with the current short-term goals of the mainstream. o Tolerance/variety. Another group of people who are differ- ent but accepted promotes cultural synergy. (Look it up.) o Not all sex is for reproduction. Controversial, but very important in times of overpopulation. o Love, happiness, etc. There are homosexuals, always have been, always will be: why should they be unhappy? These are some. There are more. I'd write more, but this is already pretty long and it's past my bedtime. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Nashua, New Hampshire ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.