sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (07/03/84)
Paul, I simply do not understand your reasoning regarding the ability of gay people to contribute to society. Steve accuses you of biogtry when you say: >I think that homosexuality ( like other things considered morally >"wrong" ) contributes, to the extent of its pervasiveness in >society, to the instability of human relationships in society. I >view homosexual relationships as generally unstable and insecure. >Therefore I do not have any confidence in the ability of >homosexual relationships to accomplish things important to the >continuance of a healthy and stable society. (i.e. raising >children well). To which you reply with: >Moral questions are not based on empirical scientific data. I >contest the charge of bigotry. In my objection to homosexuality >I am against a specific practice. Your analogy is not accurate. >All blacks are not lazy and if some are they are no so just because >they are black. I think it fair to say, though, that all homosexuals >do practice homosexual activity. Where is the link in reasoning here? Why is it that you can realize that "if some blacks are lazy it is not because they are black" but then support the position that because someone is gay, that person cannot have a "stable, secure relationship" (whatever that is; how many people who read this have parents who are divorced?) and is unfit to raise children? All this simply because I happen to be attracted sexually to men? Come on...what I may or may not do in bed with another person (the only universal "homosexual activity") doesn't affect my social abilities/skills. >Where the raising of children are concerned, the heterosexual can >always say that the children are the product of their love. In a >homosexual family there is a disconnection between their lovemaking >and children. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?!??? The product of one's parents' love? As oppossed to what--the momentary lust of a homosexual? If anything, I think you've got this backwards. Gay people who want to have children have to undergo a lot in order to have them; I should think that children out of such a relationship would stand at least as good of a chance (if not better) than those spawned in a typical heterosexual relationship. This "disconnection" as you see it may actually be an advantage: the odds of such a child being wanted and receiving the love he or she needs is greater simply because of the circumstances involved. Unfortunately, society doesn't tend to think logically along these lines, which is perhaps why you have the perspective you do. I somehow don't think the fact that you witnessed gay life from a distance in Provincetown qualifies you to draw the conclusions you have drawn: that's a very visible aspect of the gay subculture but it is by no means representative. (Nor is it necessarily a representative picture of the life of the people you saw there; Provincetown is, after all, a resort town.) In short, I think you're biased by your own mis-perceptions of both gay and straight society, and the so common tacit assupmtion that what's status quo is right by mandate. I think if you gained a little detachment from your arguments, you'd realize that what an individual does with his or her sexual partners rarely spills over into his or her ability to be a functioning member of society (there's a term I shudder to use). Scott Oaks Brown University {decvax, inhp4, allegra}!brunix!sdo