From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Feeling out of place
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 02:35:16 GMT

crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
[in response to me and my standard sociopolitical stuff]
: 
: Ah. You're using the word "political" to mean what I'd mean by 
: "sociological", I think. Does this explain any confusion?

Well, kinda as I suspected.  Yes, the words have separate definitions,
but I guess I'm coming from a point of view that anything about one has
implications for the other.  More specifically, my own sociological
theorizing tends to be innately political.  I find it a little hard to
grasp the view of people who separate the two.  I'm most interested in
trying though.

: Legality IS a political issue. However, as I was saying, I'd prefer to go for
: public acceptance, and hence less restrictive legislation, rather than to go
: for political lobbying/protest then less restrictive legislation, then public
: acceptance.

Hmm.  As has been raised in another (cross soc.motss) thread, this is an
interesting point of discussion.  I don't see why you have to paint this
as an either/or; is there really a good case against doing both?
Dropping the "hence"s, why not work on public opinion in whatever way
*as*well* as providing protection from excesses of bigotry?  I'm not
suggesting that you have to do it - that'd make me a hypocrite, given my
own "political" (in your large-scale sense) inactivity.  I'm querying
whether you really object to other people doing it, and on what grounds.
You assert:

: For a start - I don't believe the latter would work. 

Well, maybe so, maybe not.  But as has already been said in the other
thread, "work" kinda depends on what you're trying to do: bring change
or offer protection.  My own view, btw, is that legislation can work, in
the sense of moulding attitudes and actions in some (small?) way, but
not on a single-generation (or shorter) timespan.  Even without that
optimism (which is kinda like MLK's "I have a dream"), protective
legislation seems a valid political (your defn) goal, and a just cause
for those with a political temperament to push for.  Would you really
rather they didn't?  (These are meant as honest questions, not
accusations; if you never meant to imply such objections, just say so.)

: In addition, I certainly don't want to compel people to accept my
: sexuality, in the same way that some laws force people to accept
: peoples' creed or race. That just leads to the repression of hatred,
: rather than the alleviation of it.

That again I would dispute, by shifting the timespan.  It's true that it
may do little more than repress today's bigots, but I'd like to see them
coerced not to *act* in a prejudicial way towards us, and I'd hope that
their grandchildren might then grow up in a healthier environment where
such bigotry takes root less easily.

I guess I don't see why you see sexuality as different from race or
creed.  After all, if we take the nature/nuture answer of "bits of
both", it seems to slot nicely between them, as part choice, part fate,
and equally undeserving of persecution.  So why don't we deserve these
laws?

with interest
Mike
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--