NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/bi/15343

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 5.4 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!daresbury!mrccrc!warwick!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!jubilex!crj10
From: [e-mail] (Clive Jones)
Subject: Re: Feeling out of place
In-Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jon Harley)'s message of 19 Nov 92 14:00:13 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Telephone-Messages: [phone]
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Address: Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, ENGLAND.
Nntp-Posting-Host: ashley.cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: 6am Digital Playground
X-Furry-Character: Gerald_Duck
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:06:54 GMT
Lines: 90

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Harley) writes:
> [e-mail] (Clive Jones) writes:
> >[e-mail] (Jon Harley) writes:
> >> [e-mail] (Clive Jones) writes:
  [...]
> >It *is* legal (more or less).
>
> Some things are, some aren't. Some people think some of the things that
> *are* legal, shouldn't be. To voice an opposing view is political.

I would prefer to regard it as a moral decision, rather than one of political
ideology. OK, so this view may itself be classifiable as political, in the same
way as negating almost any statement including a reference to politics could
be regarded as political. (-8

> >> It's fine with me not to be politically motivated (if rather sad in this
> >> sort of society), but to deny the importance of politics, I just can't
> >> agree with.
> >I don't deny it, I just seek to minimise it.
>
> I thought "sexuality is not something to hold political opinions about"
> denied it. Glad to see I'm wrong.

Er...
- I acknowledge the importance of politics
- I agree that it is possible to take political action concerning sexuality
  issues.
- I don't feel that this is appropriate however, in that I don't feel happy
  imposing that sort of political action on other members of the public, and
  I don't see it having a positive effect.

Does that clear up the apparent contradiction?

> I think confrontational action has its place, as do normal political channels.
> And every other form of positive action in support of our cause, such as
> being interviewed for the press or going on a TV chat show.

I find confronting people before they've confronted us a little
counterproductive. I grew up with an image of homosexuals as a load of
anarchists, in essence, and derived quite gay-negative opinions. Then when I
finally realised my own sexuality, I got rather confused about why everyone
else of my sexuality was running around being activist, etc. A few equally
visible, but less activist role models would have done wonders.

> As for action such as "kiss ins", sticker campaigns, etc... I doubt they'd
> turn people off to the LBG cause, people who weren't already turned off. And
> they might turn some people on...

Some of them turn *me* off to the LBG cause! Sticking a "Bi-sexy" sticker on
the cuddly duck (Gerald - furrymuckers might recognise the name) on my
mantlepiece is OK, by my book - sticking it on someone else's cuddly toy isn't.

> >I'll vote. I'll lend vocal or written support to total equality in law for
> >non-heterosexuals. I'll support less restrictive laws on sexuality in general.
>
> Good. Those are political acts, surely stemming from political opinions.

Er... yeah, OK - you got me there. (-8

However, they are *substantially* lower-key than some of the activity advocated
in this group, and in similar contexts.

> >Besides, governments don't listen to vocal minorities. Going for genuine
> >support and sympathy from a broad base in the population, rather than going at
> >the government aggressively is more likely to be noticed.
>
> I don't agree with this at all. *Only* vocal minorities ever get noticed,
> by the government or the population. How can you "go for" sympathy without
> being vocal? And how can you expect change from the government if you don't
> ask for it?

Quiet majorities get noticed more than vocal minorities. It doesn't matter
whether LBG is in a minority, so long as people who lend us tacit support are
in a majority. If we didn't come across so much as a "threat", then popular
support might evolve more easily. I can get more support for more equal laws by
moaning at my friends about unequal ages of consent than someone else can by
holding up the traffic in Central London making a march on Downing Street.
(Nobody seems to realise that causing congestion in London is a sure-fire way
for anyone to lose support for anything, by the way... us Londoners are touchy
about that. (-8 )

All it takes is for over half the electorate to be on friendly terms with a
homo/bisexual, and to sympathise with their problems, and we're OK. Shouting at
the government then doesn't matter - they PAY people to survey the electorate
and find out what they think. It doesn't cost the government anything to give
us equality, its just that at the moment, they gain no political capital from
it because we don't have popular support. (It doesn't sound like John Major, for
example, is ideologically opposed to equality for non-heterosexuals...)

--Clive.