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*)