From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:18:22 GMT

In article <JXLXTB2w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

>
>If "being homosexual" is a violation, making a public statement of such
>would be an overt act.  If you don't believe me, make a joke about a
>bomb at an airport.

[stuff in between deleted]

>Maybe homosexuality should be declared to be a religion, then it would fall 
>under First Amendment protection...The fact that homosexuality is aberrant 
>behavior doesn't make it morally wrong, just like taking drugs.  People have 
>the right to be aberrant if they so choose, in my book, whether it's being  
>homosexual, taking heroin, gambling, visiting a hooker, or whatever.  

	 I follow your logic, but as a gay man I don't much cotton to
the motley company in which you've chosen to lump me.  The religion
suggestion is almost funny, but beyond that I don't see much humor
here.  For cryin' out loud, the only thing differnt about me, in
comparision to other people, is that I happen to fall in love with
members of my own sex.  Doesn't make me the same as a person who takes
heroin, gambles or visits a hooker, though I as an individual might
choose to do one of all of those things.

>As long as consenting adults use neither force nor fraud to do something, 
>it should be legal.              ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 

	 I would agree with you on this point.

>This all goes back to what I've been griping about all along.  If we allow
>the government to control individual liberties, we'll have to deal with
>these kinds of laws.  Very few readers of this newsgroup have advocated
>the RIGHT of an individual to take drugs inside his OWN BEDROOM, which I 
>feel is a basic right, just as consenting adults in the bedroom should be
>able to do whatever the hell they wat to.

	I concur, again, in part.  However, I take issue with this
bussiness of defining homosexuality (or sexuality itself) as merely
"what goes on in the bedroom". I refuse to be reduced to a purely
sexual creature. I would agree that the goverment has no bussiness in
my bedroom, but most of my relationships and the majority of my life
happen outside of the bedroom.
	I know that you did not say this, but the underlying tone of
your message (including the statement about 'overt acts') seems to
suggest that I should "keep it in the bedroom where it belongs".
However my relationship and my life are no different from anyone
elses, and I refuse to treat it differently. In other words, I will
continue making statements that can be construed as "overt". I will
"keep it in the bedroom" when straight people decide to do the same,
and not one minute sooner. When straight people stop talking about
their wives and husband, boyfriends and girlfriends, stop annoucing
their engagements, stop having wedding and stop wearing wedding rings,
then and only then will I stop what I do every day. Until then, I
assume that  have the right to be as overt as the next person.



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american