Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!sdo
From: sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Thoughts on the last week of not.motss
Message-ID: <8442@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 17:41:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.8442
Posted: Mon Jun 25 17:41:23 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 03:30:26 EDT
Lines: 68

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