Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Why be gay?
Message-ID: <19600@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Jun-84 02:08:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.19600
Posted: Thu Jun  7 02:08:59 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Jun-84 01:26:49 EDT
References: <19573@wivax.UUCP>, <746@pucc-h>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 55

	>I think some site upstream of us must zap most of net.motss,
	>because rarely do I see articles in it; most of the things I do
	>see are, to speak frankly, boring.

De gustibus.  But my point was that gay people cannot be characterized as
necessarily "self-loathing."  By the way, net.motss has picked up in the
past month (perhaps with the arrival of spring) so if you do not see
articles, it is undoubtedly due to some net censor.

	>I grant (responding to a paragraph not quoted here) that I've never
	>gotten to be really close friends with any of the gays I know.
	>(For one thing, most of them smoke, which I detest.)  Thus I don't
	>know how they came to be as they are.  Plus, as I implied in my
	>previous article, most of the gays I know have pleasant
	>personalities and considerable talent (my acquaintance with them is
	>through local theatre); the self-dislike (perhaps loathing was too
	>strong a term) is not immediately obvious; but it seems to be there
	>underneath the surface in most cases.

All that one should be willing to allow is that those few gay people with
whom you've made acquaintance aren't your kind of people.  I can't argue
with your particular experience, but I do resent it when you generalize
from that about all of us as a class when your experience is so admittedly
shallow. 

One could also say "smokers have pleasant personalities and considerable
talent" or "theatre people demonstrate self-dislike", but one wouldn't,
because it would sound silly.  Get my point?

	>...one whose closest relationship(s) is (are) with MOTSS's is
	>really missing out on some good stuff.

Like most of what Jeff says, we're operating with a value judgement made
before the fact, and his reality is made to fit that world view.  I'm sure you
could hear some other extremist saying "one can get so much closer to MOTSS
than MOTOS--there is so much more in common to be shared."  Both statements
bore me, because they have so little to do with anyone's personal experience--
they are primarily political statements.  I'd leave this evaluation up to each
individual, for we cannot decide for them.

	>Basically, my question is:  Why be gay, when there's so much more joy,
	>interest, and wonder in being straight?

Usually, there isn't any choice, and the bit about "more joy, interest and
wonder" is not predetermined for people of any persuasion.  There's only one
variant of this which I would accept: "Why be gay, when it's so much EASIER
being straight in Western societies?"  Of course, there's no answer to this--
people are what they are.  For people who find themselves attracted to both
sexes, there may be more of an element of "choice"--they can decide to
concentrate on one sex for simplicity or scruples, or as Woody Allen puts it,
they can double their chances of a date on Saturday night.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA