Vocalist.org archive


From:  Linda Fox <linda@f...>
Linda Fox <linda@f...>
Date:  Tue Jun 12, 2001  9:10 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] 2Be out?


Lisa Miller wrote:
>

> I don't
> understand why our society thinks sexualizing kids at a younger and younger
> age is a good thing.

But Lisa, your original post said "and for a gay couple, that would
involve handholding"

Handholding is a sign of affection. It's scarcely sexualizing! When my
daughter was 22 she was still holding my hand when we were out, in the
supermarket for example, not for any sense of security or because she
was being protective of me, but because she said she was fond of me and
just liked holding my hand. By your standards, that would seem to make
us not only lesbian but also incestuous.

> I don't think I should be verbally attacked for wanting
> to teach my children traditional family values. Most parents try to teach
> and model behavior they want their children to display.

But that's where a lot of homophobia stems from, Lisa. I know you think
you're doing the "right" thing, no doubt you were taught that way
yourself and have never questioned it. But I would earnestly suggest you
look more closely at your "traditional" values. I haven't put that word
in quotes to deride it, but to emphasise it: traditional value is not
God-given, it's what it says, it's passed down from one generation to
the next, in the belief that they are teaching "right" from "wrong".

Like sexism. Like racism. Like some other "isms"

Why do you feel it's wrong? Almost certainly because you were brought up
that way. And your attitude is, probably unwittingly, injuring certain
classes of people, as will your children's attitudes if you encourage
them to be the same as yours.

> Being gay is a lifestyle choice - one that, yes I would prefer they not
choose -

Sorry, but although it may be a _lifestyle_ choice, any gay person, out
or not, will tell you - from first-hand experience, which you do not
have - that it's not a _life_ choice.

One of my best friends is gay, I had a very close relationship with him
since he was 16 when he "adopted" me as a sort of guardian (maybe a
guardian angel :) and for years we went over and over every aspect of
this matter. Yes, he could have _chosen_ not to adopt a gay _lifestyle_
but, and I can't stress this enough, _he_ _would_ _still_ _have_ _been_
_gay_. And hiding it. And scared. And unhappy. And confused for trying
to deny it to himself, for trying straight relationships when they quite
obviously weren't ever going to work (and boy, did he go down _that_
road!)

It's rather like being wired up the wrong way round. I make (qualified)
apologies to gay people for my use of the word "wrong" in this context,
since I feel actually that it's debatable. But if there is a blueprint
for the "correct" human being, then all of us fall short of it in a few,
or many, particulars.

It's only one point of view, and, as I say, is debatable, but bear with
me for a moment.

The _primary_ purpose of sex - biologically - is still procreation.
Nature doesn't give us anything nice just because it's nice, it gives us
nice things to make sure we will keep doing what it thinks we have to.
If eating was unpleasurable (is that a word?) we wouldn't survive. So
sexual attraction is there to make sure we procreate. Doesn't mean to
say it won't be there if we're not going to, though. And this applies
not only to lustful genital activity but to the gentle physical
affection and the long-lasting bonding that are all part of it.

Now, if you go along with this idea, that would make homosexual
attraction biologically "incorrect". It would also make myopia,
having-one-leg-longer-than-the-other, left-handedness (I'm not at all
sure about that one!) and a host of other conditions, both major and
minor, biologically "incorrect". I'd have a whole load of crossings-out
on my own blueprint, fo sure!

And homosexuality, in this fecund day and age, believe me, it's no big
problem biologically. And can keep x percent of the population happy,
secure and fulfilled if it's not suppressed. So you might say, "but they
can't have children". In that case, I'd check whether your straight
children have any defect which means they can't produce children
themselves, and then consider whether, in those circumstances, they
should be allowed sexual relationships at all.

Sorry about the rant (not)

cheers

Linda


  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
12750 Homosexuality as an essential artifact of sexual Tako Oda   Tue  6/19/2001   4 KB

emusic.com