Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!hogpd!jrrt
From: jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: An open letter to Steve Dyer
Message-ID: <343@hogpd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 11:45:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: hogpd.343
Posted: Tue Jun 19 11:45:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 03:26:08 EDT
Lines: 58


		>What with the sudden profession of being a homosexual
		>on the net.singles? Out of the closet and onto the terminals?
		>Am I missing something here.  I'm really not putting anybody down,
		>believe me, but I don't view releasing yourself on the screen to be
		>one of the greatest things to do. 
	...the people who have spoken out in opposition to
	Jeff's original quotes about the nature of homosexuality...share
	several things...: that gay people are entitled to the respect and dignity
	afforded to all members of the population, that it is appropriate to
	dispute name-calling and other forms of harassment directed at gays, and
	that gay, straight or otherwise, people's personal experiences count for
	something, and that it is neither an honor nor something shameful to
	express the fact of one's sexual orientation if it is relevant to the
	discussion.
OK, Steve, you've answered her question in a rational, appropriate
manner.  This is laudable, because much of the net prefers volume and
flame as tools for persuasion.  I was impressed with your answer, until
I hit the next paragraph:

	You seem to feel that gay people should remain silent, hiding their 
	opinions, shielding their feelings and behavior from public view, as if
	they truly were the perverse notions which you imply.  But I think your
	"tolerance" will be strained these days, because more and more people
	do not agree with you, and more and more gay people will no longer 
	agree to be ruled by such prejudices.
Perhaps *I* missed something, but what train of logic brought you to
those conclusions?  What causes you to assert she is verging on
intolerance, or that she considers homosexuality "perverse?"  On the
basis of the original posting, at worst one could accuse the writer of
being naive, not of being prejudiced.

When I read that initial posting, I got the impression that the writer
was questioning the wisdom of "coming out of the closet" (a distasteful
term) on such a free-wheeling arena as the net.  With all the odd folks
on the net, certainly anyone who states s/he is gay is opening the net
and their mailbox to all sorts of electronic abuse.  It *is* unusual
that so many people have announced their gay orientation; I can't fault
the original writer for noticing and commented on the phenomenon.

My big point, Steve, is that although gays have endured unwarranted and
inexcusable abuse for defending "the only act of love that made any
sense to them" (Patricia Nell Warren), homosexuality will only become
accepted-without-bias through a process of education.  Proponents of
tolerance for gays (and any group) must make their pitch based on
thought-provoking, unemotional, persuasion; emotion is the tool best
used by the opposition.  I suggest, Steve, that your answer was
over-zealous, and could have alienated some readers.  You need not
suspect the motives of everyone who questions the gay lifestyle, however
obliquely.  If circumstances permit, use the opportunity to teach, not
flame.  

I will continue reading your submissions with interest.

Rob Mitchell  {pegasus, allegra, ihnp4}!hogpd!jrrt

Es un entreverado loco, lleno de lucidos intervalos.
(He is a muddled fool, full of lucid intervals.  *Don Quixote*)