sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (06/26/84)
I ought not perpetuate this discussion, but I am provoked enough to respond to the current discussion of morality/justification. The point is that reductionist arguments, while they may be cute, are not particularly interesting nor are they valid. To point out that every argument on this (and for that matter every other) topic is rooted in some definition of morality is useless information since it ultimately invalidates any position (which if you believe in a totally neutral universe is fine, but few if any of us can claim such a belief). And the reductionist argument that "to claim that homosexuality is viable because it feels good is the same as to claim that genocide is viable because it feels good" is patently absurd: it is the consequences of these actions that determine the value of these acts to society, and the differences of consequences between these actions make the comparison invalid. The simple truth is that there are no ill consequences to society caused by homosexuality. Historically, this was not always the case: when the Bible was written, not to procreate was dangerous to the tribe, which needed all the members it could get. Even until recently, simple economics dictated that society produce as many offspring as possible. Yet this is no longer the case; indeed, given the current exponential growth rates of consumption of every important resource we possess, it may be convincingly argued that homosexuality is now a better adaptive behaviour for the species than is heterosexuality. At the very least, however, it requires no independent justification: it is at least a neutral issue. Well, I could go on but perhaps I will spare us all further discussion of what really ought not be in this newsgroup anyway. But I will change to a more appropriate subject: I read with interest Steve's recent posting about when it is necessary to tell someone that you are gay. I agree that it is often necessary to tell someone; that after everything is considered, it does matter. But on a different level I think that it is important to be open about one's sexuality; I term this the political necessity of being out. Basically it boils down to this: to achieve any of the various reforms in equality in housing, employment, and the like (not to mention repeals of some states' outdated sex laws) requires that we be a visible presence. But being a visible presence provides other benefits: until people are confronted with homosexuality and forced to think about it, nothing will essentially change (despite what might happen in Congress or the various state legislatures). And confronting them personally is a hell of a lot more effective than depending on the media or gay activist groups to do it. It's all too easy for people to be comfortable in their prejudiced thought processes while they comfortably think "I've never met anyone who is gay"; it becomes much harder for them to reconcile these thought processes when they realize that people they've known for years are gay and don't fit into their perception of homosexuality. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that if everyone were to come out tomorrow that straight society would collectively think: "Gosh--Frank is gay, Sally is a lesbian, and all this time I thought that homosexuals were. . . . What a silly ass I've been!" But nonetheless, if any inroads are to be made, I consider it necessary that one freely admits one's sexual orientation. Yes, it's tiring, it's painful, it's difficult--but in the long run it's worth it. Does anyone agree/disagree? (Why yes, Scott, everyone either agrees or disagrees. Why not ask if anyone has anything to contribute in response?) Did anyone make it this far through this submission? Sorry about its length, but yesterday I was at the Chicago Gay Pride March which got me started on this though pattern; then at lunch today I had to explain to my co-workers why there was a march yesterday, and then I read my last week of netnews only to find some confused comparison between the validity of genocide and the validity of my sexual orientation, and that was just too much. BTW, the Chicago march was very good, though not as wild as I had always heard. Did anyone go to the New York march? Scott Oaks Brown University (allegra, decvax)!brunix!sdo
lmf@drutx.UUCP (FullerL) (06/27/84)
<> I agree with your thoughts on political reasons for being out. It's also a great advantage at times. I went to the gay pride march in San Francisco last year and that was wild and wonderful. This year and year before last I went to the Denver march. It was fun and felt good (not wild though). One of the organizers said the difference between San Francisco and Denver marches is that everyone in Denver marches. There were almost no spectators. In Denver we got almost no media coverage as far as I could tell. The media did a lot better job last year. Lori Fuller
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/28/84)
> The simple truth is that there are no ill consequences to society caused > by homosexuality. Historically, this was not always the case: when the > Bible was written, not to procreate was dangerous to the tribe, which needed > all the members it could get. Even until recently, simple economics dictated > that society produce as many offspring as possible. Yet this is no longer > the case; indeed, given the current exponential growth rates of consumption > of every important resource we possess, it may be convincingly argued that > homosexuality is now a better adaptive behaviour for the species than is > heterosexuality. At the very least, however, it requires no independent > justification: it is at least a neutral issue. Someone I met many years ago postulated the same thing: that 2000 years ago, the most important things necessary for a society to keep itself (and its members) together was the production of new members (through giving birth to children) to maintain strength and productivity, and the fostering of military strength of the society to prevent external conquest. Today, two of the biggest threats to the existence of humankind are quick annihilation through total war, and/or slow annihilation through overpopulation possibly leading to starvation, death, and total war. With that in mind, should our lives be governed by ideas designed to benefit societies of thousands of years ago, ideas that are actual detrimental to society today? The first sentence in the original author's paragraph (brunix!sdo - Scott Oaks) says it all. If you doubt that, substitute in all instances of your arguments the words "people who like chocolate" instead of "homosexuals". (Or "chocoholics", to keep it short.) "Chocoholics shouldn't be teaching our children, because they might influence our children to be chocoholics." "This chocoholicism must be stopped before it spreads to our community and we have chocoholics dripping chocolate on our persons and property." "I don't like watching people eat chocolate; it's disgusting and rude, and when people eat chocolate in public, I have to hide such behavior from my children lest they be influenced to do the same." Or substitute ANY behavior or type of person you dislike. If the only reason you have for wishing to stop any such behavior (or to put down any such type of person) is because you don't like it/them, that's called imposing one's views on the rest of the world. Or attempting to do so. [Don't try extending the above analogy to smokers. Smoking spews filth into the air that makes people physically sick. What consequences do such aberrant behaviors as homosexuality and chocolate eating have?] -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr