Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: History and homosexuality
Message-ID: <823@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 15:01:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.823
Posted: Tue Jul  3 15:01:01 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 00:30:38 EDT
References: <121@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 47

Paul,
	I'm sure you're aware of a longstanding prejudice against
homosexuality; that in itself makes much of what constitutes
"knowledge" of it dubious, to put it mildly.  Think of what was
believed, or believed to be known, about Blacks in the U.S. in
say, 1915.  Apart from a handful of whites including those who
helped found the NAACP at this time,  what most white Americans,
whether intellectual or person-in-the-street, claimed to know
about Blacks would be viewed today as incredible & often malicious
fantasy, describing not Blacks but the mentality of whites on the
subject of race.
	Now, it seems to me that at least some issues surrounding
homosexuality are prima facie bogus or at least unproductive.
These are pretty easy to identify by their fairly constant connec-
tion with bigotry and discrimination in the past.  Such issues
include considering the existence of homosexuality problematic,
asking if it's a physical or mental pathology, treating it as a
moral issue, exploring whether it's a sign of cultural decadence.
Apart from the fact all these questions are intimately associated
with homophobia past and present, I'd think that the mere fact that
these same questions have never seriously been directed toward 
heterosexuality is sufficient to doubt that they represent anything
more than homophobia.  I don't underestimate homophobia: it's still
an integral part of the world-view of many otherwise decent, intelli-
gent and well-informed people, and as such a CHERISHED bigotry that
won't easily be given up.  But the tenacity with which folklore
about homosexuality is retained has nothing to do with logical rigor
or intellectual conservatism but everything to do with the psycholo-
gical dynamics of prejudice in a period of social change.  
	For example: of course you can frame the question "Is homo-
sexuality good or bad?" distinct from questions about its psychological,
social, economic, etc. effects.  That doesn't guarantee such a question
has any substance.  Keith Bostic's first posting "Re: Fundaphobia"
illustrates how trivial the question can get.  I'll even agree that
such a question contains a moral issue, but one with about as much
profundity, urgency, interest, or relevance as whether use of the
left-hand is satanic.  "Moral" and "morality" must be two of the
most abused words in English.  Those people who claim implicitly or
explicitly that moral argument is important should especially take
pains to ensure that they don't further trivialize or corrupt it.
But that almost never happens on this net.  Moral arguments seem
to occur as the cheapest, easiest way to crank out a reply, have
the last word in what the person who presents them probably suspects
is a losing cause.
 
				(Gasp!)
				Ron Rizzo