Homosexuality is the second most emotional feature of
feminism. It becomes part of the feminist movement first because it
is a fellow minority and second because it is the victim of
masculinism.
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Mr. Lokey's pro-gay column, I would like to say
that the real issue is not the form that sexual expression takes,
condoms, or unthreatening life styles that are found to be repugnant
by the irresponsible. The real issues go much deeper than that and
are not to be understood by the casual observer.
People react to homosexuals in response to their negative
feelings when considering them and the way they live. Their
feelings may or may not be in accord with the values of society but
they are valid expressions of their personalities. If they lead to
conflict then we can either accept that and develop a work around
solution (the closet life style) or we must try to get at the source of
those feelings and then make a choice.
The homosexual life style strikes at the very heart of the Judeo-Christian value system and a society cannot allow acceptance of
homosexuals and heterosexuals on an equal basis and retain the
Christian value system.
First, take it on an empirical basis. In two thousand years of
Christianity in the West, no society has accepted homosexuality as a
valid lifestyle. Prior to that homosexuality was accepted from time
to time, in Sodom say, or Rome perhaps.
Second, look at what the church has to say about sex: it is for
procreation within marriage and for no other purpose.
Third, try to understand why this policy was adopted by the
church. Do you think they are interested in making you
uncomfortable? Don't be silly. They have grander motives than
those. The church is, in a word, creative. It aims at the creation of a
new society and homosexuality is incompatible with the ideals of
this society. So, creativity is the real issue. If anyone tries to create
something, using as his clay the human species, some will come
closer to matching up to the ideals involved and some will fall
farther from them. Those falling farther from them will naturally
be discriminated against in order to strengthen the tendency of
humanity towards those ideals. You may, in your compassion
disagree with a system that inflicts the pain of ostracism on non-conformists, but the choice is to give up the ideals.
There is no difference between this enterprise and that of horse
breeding, except that the human race itself is being operated on.
Christianity has in view a human society based on brotherhood
and a rational system of laws in which sexuality does not control the
decisions of life. In the natural world sex determines everything.
Its inhabitants are non-creative. They question nothing and confine
themselves to acting out the roles assigned to them. Christianity
offers a) the possibility of control over one's life and b) whatever
that results in.
So, take your choice.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
If you carry the horse breeding analogy I introduced in my last
letter a little farther (for those who didn't read it, I suggested that
civilization was analogous to a horse breeding farm with Christianity
providing the ideal against which every human is measured), more
conclusions of general validity can be drawn.
I think it can be readily seen that, if the owner of the horse
farm is required to adhere to a non-discrimination law; that is, each
horse gets equal treatment and no one horse can be judged superior
to another, then he is out of business. And so are we.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor
This letter is in response to Ms. Lusk's defense of homosexuality.
Of course I am prejudiced. I am prejudiced in favor of beauty over
ugliness, I am prejudiced in favor of quality over the slipshod, I am
prejudiced in favor of intellectualism over anti-intellectualism, I am
prejudiced in favor of Native Americans over my own race, I am
prejudiced in favor of government over anarchy, I am prejudiced in
favor of my own family over others and my own culture over
others. I am also prejudiced against homosexuals and have no
intention of changing.
Many of these prejudices are not supportable on the facts. They
are however creative. To adopt a non prejudicial attitude on every
issue is a deadly prejudice.
Joe Schiller
Mar. 3,
1991
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
The recent rash of letters on the subject of homosexuality has
emboldened me to again attempt to say something enlightening on
the subject.
First let me say that I think it highly unlikely that anyone under
the age of 50 or so and of those only someone with a penchant for
philosophy is likely to come up with anything more than a personal
wish. You may wish it otherwise, but that is like wishing anyone
could run a three minute mile.
Society has good and sufficient reasons for its comprehensive
ban on social acceptance of homosexuality. That reason is the
recognition that homosexuality is incompatible with civilization.
Certainly some number of homosexuals must be accepted if for no
other reason than that they may be born that way. We may have to
accept that some people are born with a tendency to serial murder,
but we can recognize that such an orientation is dangerous to society
as a whole and therefore society must find a way to repress it. We
deal with serial murderers by putting them in jail. Until now, we
have dealt with homosexuality by the somewhat more humane
mechanism of requiring that homosexuals hide the fact of their
homosexuality.
Of course there will be a tendency for the naive to insist that
they cannot see the threat that homosexuals represent and that
therefore they are unwilling to go along with the prohibition. This is
like saying that since I cannot personally vouch for the danger of rat
poison when ingested I refuse to abstain from eating it. You can do
it but your chances for success in life must be judged poor.
Now, as to what's natural and what is not. As we look about, we
must conclude that civilization is the most unnatural approach to life
we know of since it is chosen by only one species. Perhaps that is
because that species is the only one with the ability to choose, but
we cannot prove that contention and by Occam's rule must disallow
it. Since civilization appears to be so unnatural and since we are not
willing to give it up, we must be ready to pay whatever price is
required of us. We cannot suppose that choosing an unnatural
lifestyle will be free. Suppose we chose to avoid the use of clothing.
Either we would freeze or grow more hair. What if we chose to lay in
the sun all day. Well, our body would adapt by trying to arm itself
against too much radiation. So, any life style we choose would
appear to have consequences. Ignoring sexual preference is
certainly a major change in lifestyle. No other civilized society in
recorded history has done it. So, what will be the consequences? Not
having tried it, one can only conjecture.
As I pointed out in an earlier letter, if we spend all of our time
on a preoccupation with sex, we will have insufficient time to deal
with the problems attendant on a wildly unnatural life style.
Problems like global warming, ozone depletion, and of course over
population.
Joe Schiller