Page 6 HIGH GEAR-SEPTEMBER 1981

CEAR

OPINION

A Publication fo the GEAR Foundation Volume 8, Issue 1

1981 GEAR

HIGH GEAR is a publication of the Gay Educational and Awareness Resources (GEAR) Foundation of Cleveland, Ohio. It is distributed free of charge in any establishment and with any organization that will permit distribution. It is a non-profit, federally tax-exempt publication.

The presence of the name or picture or other representation of an organization, place of business or person(s) in HIGH GEAR is not necessarily indicative of the sexual orientation of such organizations or persons.

All contributions of written materials, art work or photography by members of the gay community are welcome. All materials submitted for publication are subject to editorilization. The return of materials submitted for publication, whether used by HIGH GEAR or not, cannot be guaranteed unless accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope.

All HIGH GEAR staff members are volunteers except the advertising manager. Anyone interested in working on the staff of HIGH GEAR should contact the paper at P.O. Box 6177 Cleveland, OH., 44101 or by calling the Hotline at 621-3380.

Business or organizations wishing to advertise in HIGH GEAR may obtain advertising rate cards and other information by writing to the above address.

The deadline for HIGH GEAR publication is the 15th of the month for advertising and written material. News items accepted until the date of publication.

HIGH GEAR will not publish any material of a racist, sexist, ageist or pornographic nature. HIGH GEAR reserves the right to apply the same standards to display advertising after notification is given the advertiser.

HIGH GEAR is copyrighted under Federal Law. Reproduction is granted to all other gay publications as long as credit is given to HIGH GEAR. Exception: Photographs copyrighted by Sally J. Mattson may not be reprinted nor reproduced in any way witout the written consent and/or fee paid to the photographer. All HIGH GEAR work is original unless otherwise noted.

HIGH GEAR PICTURE POLICY

Recognizable faces will not be printed in HIGH GEAR without the consent of said faces. This is to enable the patrons and entertainers of Cleveland's finest bars, clubs, entertainments and organizations to remain relaxed without fear of their "Images being stolen" when the HIGH GEAR staff photographers are at work.

VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLICATIONSEDITOR-INTERIM MANAGING EDITOR STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER STAFF ARTIST WRITERS

COLUMNISTS

LAYOUT STAFF

DISTRIBUTION STAFF

SUBSCRIPTION MANAGER

Erich Andrews Jeff Wobbecke

R. Woodward

Sally Mattson

Lenny Elfers

Sally J. Mattson Photographer

Jay Stuart, Mary Stuart, Gordon Hathaway, David George M.F. Castle

Alexandria Rudin, Chris Guarnieri, Jeannette, Moonshot and Rainwalker Steve Del Nero, Rex Rode Steve Fritch, Win Weizer, Gordon Hathaway, Brian DeWitt Barbara Lee, Gall Burlee, Marcia Perry, Lorie Cecelich, Tracey Ryan, Leslie Fortlage, Jerry Bores Dianne Fishman

Deadly metaphors

Practicing what we preach

EDITOR'S NOTE: Last month's editorial entitled “Clay pigeons don't write," made some rather sharp comments about gay individuals who do not bother to write to their elected officials.

Replying with what might be termed constructive sarcasm, some readers have asked if any HIGH GEAR staff members have been writing any such letters themselves.

Here, as evidence that we practice what we preach, is the text of a letter written and sent to Congressman Ron Motti by editorial writer R. Woodward who lives in Congressional District 23.

We are using Woodward's letter because he was the one who came up with the sharp comments and because we do not recall anyone ever having accused him of excessive modesty when someone has asked to quote his words.

Congressman Ron Mottl 5393 Pearl Road

Parma, Ohio 44129 Dear Congressman Mottl:

August 5, 1981

I went to the library to read those pages in the Congressional Record for June 18th which contain the debate on that anti-gay McDonald amendment which you voted for. I was particularly struck by something said by Congressman Barney Frank.

1) Referring to attitudes and behavior patterns in medical terms is a use of language which is metaphorical. Illness might be one of several contributing factors towards a certain type of behavior and a certain type of behavior might be one of several contributing factors towards a certain kind of illness, but behav-sary ior and illness are literally two different kinds of things.

If you do not keep in mind that illness and behavior are literally two different kinds of things, you will not be able to understand what you are doing or what is being done to you.

2) Attitudes and types of behavior are never characterized as illnesses merely to describe them. (Does any human speech merely describe?) They are characterized as illnesses to put them down.

The example is the statement, "Homosexuality is an illness." To argue about whether or not this statement is "true" is to miss the main point that calling homosexuality an illness is the use of a vague metaphor by someone who dislikes homosexuality or disapproves of it.

3) The "condone" test. If something is an illness literally, speaking of condoning it or not condoning it sounds ridiculous.

How does it sound, for example, to say that you do not "condone" diabetes or high blood pressure?

4) Defining "homophobia" as an illness is a questionable strategy. By doing so, you help to increase the general confusion about what is and is not an illness.

The more that various attitudes and behaviors are defined as illnesses, the more closely living in society will resemble being confined in a hospital. You cannot be sure that you will be in favor with those who will set themselves up as "head physicians." It is harder to resist oppression when it is easier for oppressors to help themselves to the pretense that they are "treating" you.

Please address all correspondence to HIGH GEAR P.O. Box 6177 Like inquisitors, psychiatrists, Cleveland, OH. 44101 or call evenings 621-6546.

Printed by

THE CALL AND POST

when they are destroying you, like to persuade themselves and others that they are doing it to "save" you. 440 R. Woodward

Congressman Frank pointed out that McDonald had given no examples of the abuses which he claimed his amendment was necesfor preventing, and that if McDonald had had any such examples, he would not have hesitated to make a loud noise about them.

It occurred to me that what Congressman Frank said points to a serious problem which you may not have noticed. A number of people like McDonald forget that having what they say about people seem plausible to those who say it does not automatically make what is being said actually true. As a lawyer, you must be well aware that merely making an accusation is not enough to have a case. There must be some evidence.

Not having ever met Congressman McDonald, I am not able to judge how charming he is in person, but it is embarrassingly obvious from what one reads in print that his knowledge of gays in America and how they live does not extend beyond idle superstition.

One does not have to like homosexuals to see McDonald's amendment as being both dishonest and unnecessary.

I do not think that it would hurt you to be more skeptical of so-called moralists who come your way. Anyone can claim to be representing religion and morality.

I am afraid that I am not as sophisticated as you and Representative McDonald perhaps are. I am unable to see how religion and morality are served by violating the Commandment which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Other words from the Bible I am reminded of when I hear of something like this amendment of McDonald's are Jesus's words in Matthew, "Beware of false prophets who come to you as wolves in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenning wolves," and Jesus's advice which can be found a few verses further along, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

It is not enough for people like McDonald to sound pious. What are the results going to be of what they suggest?

To lose assistance with a civil suit from the Legal Services Corporation (please tell me if you are sure that I am mistaken) a person only needs to be accused of homosexuality by his or her opponent.

Take, for example, custody cases. Your voting for the McDonald amendment has contributed to legalized child stealing. If the McDonald amendment passes the Senate it will be easier for mothers and fathers without a great deal of extra money for lawyers to lose their children if the lawyers of ex-spouses or other relatives decide to accuse them of homosexuality as a basis of having them denied further custody.

An important practical consideration which I do not think has occurred to you is that an accusation of homosexuality is impossible for anyone to completely disprove.

There is no way to prove exclusive heterosexuality. No physically healthy person can prove that he or she has never engaged in homosexual acts. One can only take an individual's word for it.

Having done "straight" things -such as getting married, having children, or even voting for anti-gay legislation -is no conclusive evidence of being "straight." (There are a lot of people who will not be forgetting very soon the nationwide coverage given to the cases of Bauman and Hinson.)

Whether or not anyone is regarded as being heterosexual and this includes just about everyone you know, including yourself -depends

almost entirely on whether or not anyone wants to believe it.

I think that measures like McDonald's amendment are too questionable, morally and religiously, to be any help at all to decent people trying to lead decent lives.

What such measures do is provide nasty people with additional opportunities for acting nasty.

16X06 0.9 RABO HDIн MOITOU

Sincerely yours, Robert S. Woodward