From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Same-sex consorts, homophobia, fun mavins, etc.
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:42:29 GMT

In article <VsXXqB3w165w@ailanth.UUCP> ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Sep9.181418.13612@news.cs.brandeis.edu> tabron@binah.cc.brand
>> >In reply to many of the (copious) postings following up the thread of
>> >conversation concerning same-sex consorts.
>>
>> I bow to the Lady's courteous comments and her erudition--both in
>> general and on the subject at hand.
>>
>yes, i was quite impressed too...
>
>> Two points:
>>
>> It has been pointed out that life isn't fair--indeed, the Society is
>> *fairer* in many ways than the society.  (I think that's an excuse in
>> this case--though a valid one.  Not correct--just valid.)
>
>people always say, "life isn't fair" when they're about to screw you over.

Milady, I understand you point and agree that the sentiment is quite
often used as a prelude denying permission.  I made the point as an
observation.  Please note also that I disagreed with the application
of the principle.

>> There is what I consider a reasonable precedent for changing SCA
>> policy on the subject under discussion.  
>>
>find me an example of a crown being awarded by tourney in period.  

I believe I understand the argument that you are making, but it does
not support your case.  Rather, your point makes it a matter of
changing how we choose our Royalty.  You should be crusading to make
the method period--not protesting that the current practice is not
period and therefore another non-period fillip should be added.

>i can get
>you examples of same-sex inspiration of a chivalric manner, and same-sex
>coupling among women warriors.  

None of which the SCA has any rules about--nor should it.  What we
would now consider gay sex among men was considered the ideal form of
love at times and places in the past too.  I would hardly use that
(Greek) model either castigate or praise SCA practices.  Neither will
I condemn anyone for what the do in private, whether or not I would
wish to partake the same activity myself.

>perhaps the crown should be
>awarded at whatever great battle all the kingdom gets together for.  the
>warriors of all the baronies fight it out, and whatever army comes out of it
>the winner, that baron becomes king, or baroness becomes queen.  then the
>baron/ess takes a consort of whoever will be the most advantageous to keep
>rival baronies from staging insurrections.  then we have a fairly period
>kingship, and adding period strictures would make sense.  

That's a variation on ideas that have previously been discussed.
Would you care to spearhead an effort to convince your kingdom and the
Board to select your royalty in that manner?  It is dertainly a more
period practice, but if you want the winning Baron(ess) to be able to
pick a same-sex consort, you'd still need to document *that*.

>barring certain types of chvalric love because they
>were not allowed in a completely different venue...

I dislike having to put this this way:  Show me where the SCA bars
chivalric love between any two individuals.

So far as I know--and I've been around the SCA a fair while--*no*where
does the SCA address the topic of who anyone may bestow their
affections upon or in what way, save only that Sovreign and Consort
must be of opposite sex.  Since there is no
requirement--anywhere--that said Sovreign and Consort have *any* sort
of romantic attachement whatsoever (chivalry, physical, platonic or
what have you), i think the point fails.  Indeed--one could make a
excellent practical case that *not* being particularly attached to
each other would be a Good Thing.

>> It is not my wish to dash hopes, but I would point out that in a world
>> where SCA folk have had to scrape SCA stickers off their cars out of
>> fear (sorry about the plurals--I *have* been told of a specific
>> incident), there are topics on which SCA official policy is wise to be
>> cowardly about.
>>
>SO????????  fear is part of life if you're different.  if you don't want people
>to think you're a dangerous wierdo, don't display obvious wierdness.  why
>should SCAdians be magically exempt from this stricture?  i know people who
>have had to scrape off feminist bumper stickers too, and i have taken my gay
>rights buttons off my jacket at times for fear of teh reactions of my fellow
>subway riders.  as i have said before, the fact that someone somewhere might
>not like the fact that i am odd does not instill me with a desire to become
>normal.

Precisely.  The SCA is *not* exempt from the stricture--and it is up
to the Board to see that the need to fear is minimized.

>> I have generally refrained from entering this specific discussion
>> because I am not sure in my own mind what a right course is (let alone
>> *the* right course).  No matter *what* is decided, some people are
>> going to feel hurt--or worse.  We may strive to have winners and
>> losers or we may have losers only.
>>
>if some people are going to decide that treating people decently hurts their
>feelings, then they deserve to have their feelings hurt.

Milady, I submit that you appear to want the SCA to be in the
forefront of the battle for a variety of minority rights.  This is a
laudable goal.  I do not, however, think that it is the appropriate
organization to lead that particular charge.  Nor do I think that the
SCA is the most appropriate battleground--in the sense of a place to
reform first that the rest of society can be made to follow.

If we are to change the SCA, I think it should to towards Medieval
models--not away from them (and, for that matter, to generally earlier
models, not later).  I agree that society at large pays little more
than lip service to some of the rights supposedly ablsolutely
guaranteed in the US's founding documents, but I *don't* think the
blame for this condition can be laid at the feet of the SCA.

By now, even those that weren't familiar with these issues are now at
least partially sensitized to them (at least those on this network). I
think that if society at large undergoes changes that create wide
acceptance of religious tolerance and true *acceptance* of the
differences among people, then there will be better acceptance of
restrictions within organizations that have well codified and rational
reasons for placing a minimal set of restrictions on otherwise
accepted activities.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.arts.heraldry,rec.org.sca,soc.culture.celtic