From: thom@access.digex.com (The Elf-Lad)
Subject: Re: consort gender
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:43:04 GMT

jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter) writes:

>>>necessarily homophobic, any more than it is "arts phobic" to insist that 
>>>at least one of the couple must fight well enough to win a Crown Tourney.
>>
>>Well, it is, but that's another thread :)

I did include a smiley--------------------^

>"Phobia" is a root having to do with fear.  I don't see any fear at all in
>the use of Tourneys to decide rulership.  Lots of other kinds of assumption,
>but no fear.  Not every choice that happens to decide against some class was
>motivated by fear of that class -- or even awareness of its existence.  It
>may nonetheless be pernicious; but not all pernicious things are phobic, and
>claiming falsely that they are only weakens any arguments concerning their
>perniciousness.

No argument here. But the word homophobia has come to mean something 
more than fear of homosexuals; in common parlance, it also is used
to describe an irrational hatred. Perhaps that has not been exhibited
online, often, but it *has* occurred, and it happens more often than one
might think in RL events with the SCA. And rest assured that , whatever
your reasons may be, no matter how surely your assertions lie in
a call for historical accuracy, for no small number of people in the
Society the exclusion of same-sex consorts is based solely on their
distaste for and dislike of homosexuals. I do not doubt your 
intellectual honesty, but whatever your personal reasons, the effect 
of posting in support of current ruling is that you deny to homosexuals 
rights you could choose to exercise for yourself.

>>>companions in common?  There are many inaccuracies in what we do; and
>>>we can't hope to eliminate them all, and it's not clear that we'd
>>>want to.  But the more we divorce our most central symbols from anything

Why don't we want to? You can cite no reason other than history for
disallowing same-sex consorts; what reason then to allow these other
inaccuracies?

>If you believe it is not an adequate reason in some particular venue,
>it is a more effective tactic to say why this venue belongs on the one
>side of the line rather than the other, than to excoriate people for 
>citing history.

I excoriate people not for citing history, but for picking and choosing
so that some are privileged while others are not. 

>Say what?  Um, I'm not male.  (Also, I don't fight, and while my lord
>does, and I hold him dear and value him greatly, I never expect to see
>him win a Crown.  So I am as much excluded under the current rules as
>any.  I have no personal stake in this one way or the other -- and 
>don't greatly appreciate the implication that I do, and that that is
>the only basis for my opinions.  Your argument would also have been
>stronger without this tag.)

Milady, I do apologize for this misassumption of your sex on my part.
I was misled by your name and by my own narrowmindedness. I am used 
most often to men (and not all men, of course) arguing against equal
opportunity for gay people; I do not usually expect those who would be
similarly disadvantaged by a strict interpretation of historical accuracy
to do so. 

The implication of a personal stake in this matter, however, is one 
that I still maintain holds true for many of those who
support the current ruling; I take you at your word that it has no
bearing on your decision.

However, your lord's ability to win the crown or not is not at issue.
If he were to win the Crown, he could choose you as consort. You have
chosen not to exercise your right--yet it remains your right--to
fight and choose him as consort should you win. I have no such right,
no choice. "Pernicious" is indeed a good word for that inequitable 
situation.

-- 
Thom Watson, the Elf-Lad         elf-lad@access.digex.com <-----preferred
                                 elf-lad@aol.com         elflad0@glib.org
                                 thom.watson@p924.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org
                                 GEmail=T.WATSON7
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca