Homosexuals
Sir: Ian Harvey in his article, 'The Homosexual Stigma' (May 18) is confused. The word 'normal' means regular or typical, and the concept of normality in our society is an organic product reflected by its standards, habits, and established law. By definition it is not, as he suggests, "open to serious dispute." It consists in nothing more nor less than the opinion of that majority whose voice is the basis of the "free and democratic society" which Mr Harvey later calls upon for support. He cannot have his cake and eat it. While it. is true to say that, relatively speaking, homosexuality "in the opinion of the majority, is an affront to normality," Mr Harvey's basic postulate that "what has to be proved without peradventure is the basic normality of the homosexual society" is untenable.
Socially, however, homosexuals may reasonably expect tolerance, as may all legal minority groups, and why should this be "an unacceptable compromise"? Tolerance is the disinclination to condemn morally, and its long-established practice in our country has made it a more positive and fruitful virtue than its negative definition implies. Druids, flagellants, members of Mensa, etc. do not go about demanding to be considered 'normal'; they are content to be tolerated, and to be equal under the law.
Politically, if homosexuals feel that they are not equal under the law, they are at liberty to form themselves into an articulate group and campaign for changes in that law, which they are doing. Surely no political pressure group expects to be liked, merely heard.
Mr Harvey's penultimate paragraph is particularly deserving of attention. He talks of the 'exclusion' of homosexuals — but in exactly what sense, his rambling invective against "the majority," "industry," "leaders of public opinion," the media, and so on, fails to make clear. He goes on to describe them as "people who have a useful and often valuable part to play in the life of the community." I should imagine any homosexual would be affronted by Mr Harvey's abnormal feeling that this has to be pointed out. The community knows homosexuals as people who drive taxis, write books, build roads, sit on juries, pay rates, etc. Their relationship to it appears virtually identical to that of the
heterosexual.
Finally Mr Harvey's note of rising hysteria in portraying homosexuals as victims of treatment "on a par with the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis and the treatment by the Communists of those who do not agree with them," makes entirely ludicrous an article which should have been as serious as its subject deserved. I am afraid this kind of writing puts Mr Harvey on a par with his much despised alderman in Weymouth.
Merrily Harpur Long Acre, St George's Hill, Weybridge, Surrey
Previous page
