pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/28/84)
After reading Rich Rosen's remarks on my last article I feel
the need to communicate a little more. Rich has accused me
of "finger pointing" and belittling homosexuals with my remarks.
I don't recall (nor did I intend to) personally attacking any
individual or any one who is a homosexual. I realize, though,
that the tone of my article could cause many to feel that that
*was* my intent. I sincerely apologise for that. My remarks
were made while still under the emotional effects of the responses
I received from my first article.
I really think I have tried to be reasonable in my intent to
express my views here. I don't think any of the comments Rich
has made really deal effectively with the point of my article.
Which is just that I don't think homosexuality is above moral
examination. I don't think I have applied any moral arguments
against it, all I was trying to say is that moral arguments *do*
apply to the issue. I don't view my moral conviction of homosexual
practice being wrong to imply an inherent worthlessness of human
beings who are homosexuals, because I don't believe that sexual
orientation is an intrinsic characteristic (like race or gender).
So, honestly, I don't hate homosexuals. I think I could have
been one myself had the conditions been right. I see in myself
things that I consider to be just as morally wrong as homosexual
practice. I don't think that they lower my worth as a human being
(I don't hate myself because of them) but I don't accept them as
normal and right either. Breaking with some things has been really
hard and I have been often fallen into trying to accept them thinking others
don't really understand and this must be just the way I am. But
that never got me any peace and liberation has proven possible,
though hard and not without help.
I am not driven by a passion to make others conform to my moral standard.
Many times I would really rather not get involved. I would rather not
help the drug addict or the alcoholic--getting involved in their problems,
especially if they don't want it and think they're happy the way they are.
I'm sure I don't understand completely what it is like to be in their
situation. But if you honestly believe something is wrong and is hurting
both the individuals and the society of which they are a part, then not
to speak out about it is to care not at all about them. To many my
opinion of homosexual practice being a moral wrong has has been perceived
has a personal dislike and insensitivity. I try not to let it be that way.
I do not think that the force of law in this country should dictate that
homosexuality is wrong, but neither do I think it should be protected by
that law as being right (for the reasons I gave in previous articles).
I believe that hatred and toward homosexuals is never justified. I was
strongly dismayed when a recent Columbus city council meeting (discussing
legislation that would bar homosexuals from discrimination in employment)
was beseiged by angry, self righteous and hateful fundamentalist Christians.
I even wrote a "letter to the editor" of the daily paper strongly
criticizing them. (Big deal. Right?)
Well, now I'm really going to go away. Again, I am sorry for
any hurt I might have caused. I intend none. I do oppose
homosexuality and the embracing of it by our society as being
right or normal, however. I cannot, in good conscience do
otherwise.
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/30/84)
>Well, now I'm really going to go away. Again, I am sorry for >any hurt I might have caused. I intend none. I do oppose >homosexuality and the embracing of it by our society as being >right or normal, however. I cannot, in good conscience do >otherwise. I submit that leaving in the middle of a discussion which you initiated, without having addressed ANY of the points which others have disputed is, at best, irresponsible, at worst, cowardice. Even though I have been careful to mail you copies of all my responses as well as posting them to net.motss, I have seen nothing from you which acknowledges them, let alone addresses their content. I try to leave open the possibility of there being a UUCP black hole, but that seems rather unlikely. Naturally, if you have recently responded, please disregard this notice... You have offered no defense whatsoever to justify your feelings that "homosexual relationships are inherently unstable", you have given no reason that homosexual acts should be singled out for condemnation as "immoral", and one shudders to realize that you will be joyfully passing this "reasoning", if we could call it that, on to your kids. I submit to you, and to the audience, that we see here the dark side of what is called "faith"--there has been no reason offered or present in Mr. Dubuc's articles. Is this a bit harsh? I think not, for all Dubuc needs to do is to confront the issues to remove the stigma of irrationality. I still invite him to do so. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA