From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:40:25 GMT

In article <1gn9djINNra1@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
(replying to Walters original stastement)
> > > But I can be friends with a fundie, I can
> > > accept that that is what they want to be, and are.  I don't have to 
> > > accept their hard-line views to keep us from beating each other up
> > > with tire irons.   

> > The problem with a lot of fundies is that they are the ones weilding the
> > tire irons, but I agree with this basicly.
 
> You accept the notion that I can disagree with a fundie and still accept 
> him on a personal level; why is it so hard to grasp the idea that people 
> see homosexuality as wrong, but can accept people who are homosexual on 
> a personal level?  

I have no problem understanding that, I said I agree with it.
However there is curently a movement amongst the religious right to
reform the civil law of our country and make it conform to the taboos
of their particular moral code. That takes the question out of the 
personal arena and makes it a public issue. 

In New York the legitimate
government agency which oversees the curriculum of their states educational
system determined that it was time for a program which would foster 
tolerance for diversity. One particular school district refused to implement
the curicullum, and in fact refused to even negotiate. Reality is that
all the  other regional school boards negotiated with the State agency, and
the program which includes material about Gay and Lesbian tolerance
isn't used until 5th grade. When the school board in question failed to
show up for negotiations the State Authority did what they were empowered to
do with an intransigent local board, they removed them.

The local board had ample opportunity to negotiate in good fath, they were 
removed because they refused to carry out their legitimate duty.

> > > What exactly must be done for things to be *OK* with you?  If I accept 
> > > your right to peacefully be whatever you want to be, but don't find it
> > > 'natural' or 'normal' or whatever you want to call it, is that OK? 
> > > Or do I have to think a certain way for it to be OK with you?

> > Ok, now we are down to it.
> > No you don't have to think a certain way for me, but I want you to 
> > grant me the exact same rights , privileges and freedom you give to
> > yourself.  Nothing less , nothing more.
 
> Which by far the great majority, (including me) would also like to see. 

Are you willing to allow us the right to be visible in our society.

It may be hard for you to understand, because you are used to these concepts
being a default for you. I lived my life as a strayt man until I was 35,
I do understand this issue from your POV, but having spent the last ten
years as an out of the closet queer man, I also understand what you cannot.

Last week I went to a  nightclub with a friend, it happens that he is black.
After about five minutes or so, my friend said to me.. "I'm the only black
person here". I was puzzled, my reaction was *so!, does that make a
difference?*.  But after thinking about it for a while I realised that
whatever he was feeling was something that I could not feel because I'm
not a black person in that situation. Then i remebered back to when i use
to take the #3 bus to get home. I was always the only white person on that
bus, I learned a lot about myself and the dynamics of the interaction
between blacks and whites from the experience, but it still didn't prepare
me to really understand it from the black perspective.

> Including people in Colorado.  So if the majority of people on both 
> "sides" want the same thing, why are things the way they are?  Why is 
> it so hard for people to talk calmly?  

Why indeed, I would say because there are deeply rooted pre-judgements
and core mis-information that sabotages the process.

Also consider that  the entire issue is colored by many factors which go
beyond individuals. For example here on the net, the queer newsgroups are
regularly invaded by people who have malicious intent and mean spirited
manner. In recent years the number of such individuals has increased
dramatically. What happens is that due to a variety of political styles and 
a wide range of debating capabilitys, the issues get quickly clouded, and 
tension has grown exponentially. Trust me we would really like to have a
newsgroup where we are left to socialize amongst ourselves and our friends.
In The hierarchy of newsgroup names the prefix soc means social.
well soc.motss has been anything but social, mostly due to the homophobe
factor. We have become accostommed to fighting, it has extended to our
interactions with each other. If nothing else this is unfair.

Granted some of the folks on this newsgroup and soc.motss are
unsophisticated about their politics, but ultimately these are just
conversations. what you have walked into is a room full of queers thats 
been under seige for about a year and a half, nerves are raw, and you are
inheriting the onus of the leagcy left by those who have been doing the
attacking.

> Which rights, privileges and freedoms 
> do you not have? 

Many, many. I am not allowed to legitimise my relationships in a legal
marriage. In some states I am not allowed to sleep with my partner of
choice under penalty of law ( BTW, as late as the 1960's this was the case
for inter-racial couples in many states as well ).
I am excluded from legislative remedys to discrimination...
trust me each of these areas expands into a whole panoplay of second class
citizenship.
I am reminded ona regular basis that this country has a policy of 
Liberty and justice for some, and that I'm not always included.
I want the same recognition of inclusion as you.

> > I want the laws
> > which govern my responsibilitys as a citizen to be the same as those which
> > affect you. 
 
> Yes. 

Right now they do not, the supreme court has upheld your right to 
have sexual relations with the opposite gendered partner of your choice,
and denied me that same right.

> > I want the same validation as a being as you get, and
 
> ? "validation as a bieng" is based on sexual orientation?  You think my 
> "validation as a bieng" is based on that?  I sure don't.  

yes as a being, and if you think your validation isn't predicate on your
sexual orientation then just try identifying yourself as Queer and see what
happens. Heterosexual orientation is validated in our culture by default,
you are largely unaware of the privileges and rights that go along with it.
Unless you have the experience of *being* not heterosexual you cannot
understand what it feels like to be a not-validated member of society.
Your insistence that you have a right to legislate our lives back into
invisibility is a prime example of the sort of validation I am talking
about.

Also, sexual orientation is not just about sexual acts, it is a dynamic.
Our lives are different from your in some ways because of our orientation,
but in many many ways they are not different. 

I think you really need to look at your position regarding the intrinsic
nature of sexual orientation. You are operating from a POV that heterosexal
orientation is an absolute default, you are acting as if all queers are
perversely acting against that default nature for some reason.
This just isn't that case. You seem to ahve some difficulty understanding or
believing that, I don't grok why.. what would we gain by lying to you?

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality