: : Lark, much as I sometimes share feelings similar to yours, not being a homosexual, and much as I don't think that socialists need to follow a particular sexual orthodoxy, I still feel that homosexuals are deserving of more tolerance and acceptance than they;re currnetly accorded in America.: I believe that homosexuality engenders a kind of hedonistic drive and revolves around gratification rather than love that is found in the worst heterosexual relationships
What does any sexual relationship revolve around, Lark?
Sex.
Simple, isn't it?
As I've said, there are no measureable medical or psychological differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
The love between a gay couple is *exactly* the same as that between a straight couple; the *only* difference is the gender of one of the partners and the unlikeliness of reproduction.
Lark, would you say that the defining heterosexual relationship is the drunken one-night-stand?; after all, in any given lifetime, you're likely to have far more one-nighters than you are long-term relationships.
That's basically what you are saying about homosexuality.
If you're talking numbers, the most numerous type of sexual encounter is the one-off; stable partnerships are the exception. That goes equally for heterosexual and homosexual encounters.
: now I refuse to generalise this isnt always the case but this is the message their media projects
'their media'?
Lark, I can't exactly see you as a regular reader of the Pink Paper.
The mass media have, on the whole, a markedly heterosexual slant and a notable homophobic streak.
Name 10 Hollywood films in which a stable heterosexual pair are shown.
Now name 10 Hollywood films in which a stable gay pair are shown.
: and they themselves project with their parades and covorting in public parks at night.
What you're objecting to is the classic Clapham Common style 'duck into the bushes', yes?
Try examining *why* people go to Clapham Common.
What is the purpose of going to a nightclub vis-a-vis sex, Lark?
You go there to pull.
An unwelcome advance on a woman is likely to get you slapped at worst.
An unwelcome advance on a homophobic man could land you in hospital or the nearest mortuary.
Society as it currently stands is homophobic to the point of violence; gays are effectively marginalised; forced into a ghetto.
That's what Clapham Common is; a ghetto; a place where gay people can be open about being gay without getting their heads kicked in.
While I personally would like this not to be the case (I would like to live in a society tolerant of differences), I can recognize that it isn't currently the case.
So, if you want to ban public lewdness in places like Clapham Common; consider the analogous heterosexual restriction; shutting down every nightclub in the country.
If society could permit public displays of homosexual affection, places like Clapham Common would disappear; they would have no further purpose - because you could be gay or straight and no-one would give a toss; even in a nightclub.
: I would agree with you that socialists should err on the side of caution when it comes to declaring principles beyond social or economic spheres but we are seeking a good society, social order etc., and that requires suggesting to people that their behaviour is a bit selfish at times.
Exactly what is selfish about love, Lark?
Farinata.
