From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.arts.books
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:10:57 GMT

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> 
> MZ:
> >>Of course, everything depends on your definition of
> >>well-being.  I note in passing that the one homosexual I knew best,
> >>loathed his not altogether freely chosen lifestyle so much, that he
> >>drank himself to death.
> 
	Okay, now things are starting to make sense. Mickey is able to argue
his position logically (on most points - there are still some that I don't 
agree with,) but the reason that he takes on this position, like all of us,
is based upon emotional reasons. It would be just as easy to argue logically
for homosexuality, as many of us have done, by starting from a different set
of premises. The question is, why does Mikhail (I'm getting serious now, so 
no more "Mickey") decide to argue from these premises?
	The answer, I believe, is contained in the above post, and it makes
perfect sense. If the most important and (most likely) the first extended 
contact I had with a homosexual involved someone who so loathed his lifestyle
that he drank himself to death, I would probably be agreeing with Mikahil.
	However, this is not the case. My formative interactions with 
homosexuals were, for the most part, very positive. The first adult homosexual
I met (that I knew of) was my cousin Sandy. This was when I was about 8, and
was at her wedding, to another woman. My mother, a registered minister, 
performed the ceremony. While my general reaction was negative (I was 8, and
at a wedding with a bunch of adults -i.e., I was bored out of my skull. Also,
I was angry because my sister got the front seat both on the way there and on
the way back,) I was confronted with a highly positive image of homosexuals.
(By the way, they are still happily "married.")
	Besides this, one of my best teachers in high school was openly gay.
At college, although heterosexual, I joined and eventually become co-chair
of the college's LBGA, simply because I enjoyed hanging out with the people 
who were in it (including the famed twpierce!) and enjoyed being in an 
organization with them.
	In other words, I was raised and have given my self a very positive
view of homosexuals. Most of the ones that I know are fairly stable, happy 
individuals who have accepted their sexuality.
	For Mikhail, this is not the case. For him to see homosexuality to 
be a destructive and unpraiseworthy behavior is understandable, although I 
hope he may change. It certainly won't be a result of this group, as, no 
matter how many good arguments we make, I doubt any of us are considered
"friends" by him, and thus unlikely to change his emotional opinion. Since,
as far as I can tell, he has not posted anything referring to Amendment 2
being a good thing or any other anti-homosexual political issues, I am willing
to accept his position as being one that he has come to on the basis of his
own personal, empirical evidence. I just hope that it changes. I am very 
sorry about your friend, and I extend a hand of friendship with you, as 
much as I may disagree with your opinions.

> cordially,
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
	I know what you all are thinking - "Who are you, and what have you
done with the _real_ Skippy?!?" No, it really is me - sorry if my flame to
bandwidth ratio is unacceptably low this time around. :]P

--

"There are five billion people in the world.
 I wonder how many of them we can screw over."
				-Skippy 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality