Jim Andris, Facebook

Four student letters to the editor, 5/3/1974

SGL Debate sets hysterical mood

Closely following the women's act, which was dry but had its entertaining moments, a new show is packing them in at the Goshen Lounge. The SGL has opened and their debut set the tone for a week that is proving to be hysterically funny. Their opening number, given the poor review in the Alestle, was fantastic despite the fact it relied solely on local talent. The audience, obviously appreciative of an amusing and exhilerating performance, joined right in, and in many instances stole the show. Not to be outdone, the SGL imported national stars whose entertainment possibilities remain unlimited. A brief taste of these renowns has been exhibited and I, for one, applaud and shout "Encore!" If you've missed this charade previously, cut class, cut work and catch at least one showing. However, if you miss them entirely don't worry, they'll be back. Nothing breeds success like success and the show must go on.

Mark Somma
S.S.N.

Student asks reals reasons for actions

After the astounding display of higher learning (which we will define here as the free exchange and expression of ideas) in Monday's Goshen Lounge dialog kicking off the Gay Awareness week, my lack of faith in the human race (at least that species of it we breed here in the U.S.) as intelligent, rational beings has been confirmed. Although one should not be too harsh on the peculiar form of this species which was grazing in the vicinity of the Goshen Lounge Monday. After all they are only a segment of a larger herd. It seems extremely doubtful that the discussion, which could have led to better understanding between homosexuals and heterosexuals, if taken in the right context, would have received a response much different anywhere in the country.

The question that immediately comes into mind is why the defensive response. Could it be that these "students of higher learning" might have real reasons for their actions and "ideas"? If so, what could they be? It seems hardly logical that they could object to the acts themselves, which one imagines when thinking of homosexuality. No doubt many of these same "normal" people paid $5 a seat to see Marlon Brando engage in anal intercourse with Maria Schneider. Indeed a recent poll shows that this form of sexual expression is being increasingly used by "normal" couples. Also it seems rather inconsistent for an act such as oral sex to be considered uninhibited (even wholesome, if such words have any meaning) when performed by members of the opposite sex, yet the same act is seen as despicable if the parties are of the same sex. It seems obvious from the above that it is not really the act which is objectionable, but rather an individual's choice of a companion. It should be noted here that personal choice is often criticized by others regardless of which sex one chooses.

Some of the more righteous Christians in our herd probably see homosexuality as an immoral act and quote the scriptures to prove their point (or any other point for that matter). Of course it should also be noted that many "perceptive" non-Christians might also look with a cautious eye upon any man who abstains from sexual activity and is in constant companionship with 12 men. Bad jokes aside, the religious argument is valid only to those who accept and/or interpret the dogma in the same way. Surely, one whould hope, we are beyond the days when we burn heretics.

But homosexuality is against all traditional social mores, certain individuals would say. However, fortunately, many of (if not all) of these societal customs change or we should still be burning witches and crosses in the name of morality.

Finally we come to what is the most liekly reason: fear and hate of anything that is different and beyond ones personal comprehension, coupled with an unwillingness to accept such ideas. I expect this letter to have no effect in "reaching" those who fit the above description (a majority so it seems of the Goshen herd), for many people have expressed themselves much better than I and have been ignored. Indeed it would shock me to receive any other response than more hatred and fear. It is partially due to the above that most Americans are so easily led by one who can play upon these fears and hatreds.

I wish the members of the gay and other misunderstood, feared and hated minorities (as the black community once was and still is in some minds) the best of luck in attempting to create an understanding between themselves and their closed-mined antagonists and to reach the people (despite the ignorance they often carry around as a badge of courage). However, I feel almost certain they are doomed to failure for a long time to come—perhaps forever.

Rick Whitsell

Dialogue participant criticizes editorial

This is a reaction to the editorial placed on the front page of the Alestle concerning the Gay Liberation dialogue. I feel that it was a highly unfair generalization to say "there is a very high level of hate for fellow human beings in this community." There were some serious questions and comments by some serious people. To say that we were all "Ugly displays" is totally wrong!

I asked several questions and made several comments on Whitsell's and Stock's position. Afterwards several students reprimanded me for critizing these two men. I then explained that I was not against homosexuals and their fight for deserved rights. I only challenged their comparisons to other minority group movements.It is impossible to compare a deviant (different not judgemental) behavior movement to a black, Indian, woman, or any other type of minority movement. This reprimanding made me aware that I had sounded anti-homsexual. When realizing this, I apologized to Whitsell and Stock. I did not apologize for my opinion, but for the surface appearance of an unfeeling, anti-homosexual right individual.

In the editorial there was not any mention of the fact that there were some people who lingered on to talk to these two men. Some people were there to congratulate them on their control. I, one of those "ugly displays," expressed my admiration to them. Sure, there were some asses and uncalled for displays, but what can one expect when someone challenges another's thoughts and feelings. But, to say in an editorial that individuals were ignorant because they were filled with emotions and challenges, is ignorant upon the part of the editor. No one has the right to say anyone is wrong for feeling and commenting on any subject. Perhaps it was outrageous that so many people were upset, but when faced with something different to a whole set way of life, there is going to be a reaction.

Indeed, the people were made aware of the Gay Liberation ... the purpose of the dialogue. Whitesll told me that they had expected the students reaction, but not with such intensity. People were involved, ....and I am disgusted at the editorial. There is always the complaint of apathy—now there is your complaint of too much emotion and involvement. We have a right to express what we feel. Who are you to view any expression as ignorant? Can you condemn us without yourself being involved? Perhaps even the individuals who made asses of themselves are more concerned about individual rights than you who condemn.

Jan Orzeck
S.S.N.

Gays have right to be heard, too

While listening to the comments and question put to the panel discussing and representing gay liberation, (Monday, April 29, Goshen) I was quite amazed at the display of stupidity and unfairness of the majority of those that spoke to the panel. These so called normal (?) heterosexuals seemed only to speak out out of the desire to harass and ridicule instead of trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. The majority of those that got up to speak really gave me the impression of their lack of intelligence.

As a heterosexual, I do sympathize with gays to an extent. Minorities have always been unfairly oppressed, but the basic thing that minorities and all other races had in common for the most part was heterosexuality. Anyone can talkdown togays and give themselves the feeling of their own importance by putting down those they resent. I think that this accounts for much of the unreasonable and unwarranted reactional behavior of those confronted with homosexuality.

1 feel that gays (along with anyone else) have a right to be heard. I also feel that they have a right to live as they please--as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Heterosexuals have no right toforce their beliefs on gays, nor do they merit the right to force their views upon us. We must realize that what may be right for one person isn't always right for someone else.

I feel somewhat uncomfortable about homosexuality and I can't actually accept it, but I believe in a policy of live and let live. The basic problem is that homosexuality will never be totally accepted when there is such a great majority of heterosexuals, and this is a problem that holds few, if any, solutions.

Name Withheld By Request