News: LGSU 'morally unjustifiable': Biaglow
By Brian Davis, published October 23, 1987
"By recognizing the LGSU (Lesbian/Gay Student Union) this organization (the Undergraduate Student Government) is basically sanctioning a group that is not morally justifiable," said Andy Biaglow, a commuter representative on USG, after the October 14 meeting of the USG.
In response to Biaglow's statement. LGSU President Barb Lucas said, "It's a blatant, bigoted comment--the same as calling a black person a nigger."
The LGSU did receive recognition at the October 14 meeting of the USG. Biaglow and one other member of the assembly, Aviv Ben-Meir, class of 1991 representative, voted against recognizing the LGSU, although Dave Michael, USG vice president of finance, said, "There is no reason these groups shouldn't be recognized."
Michael, upon hearing Biaglow's comment, laughed, and said. "Everyone is entitled to his own personal opinion."
Biaglow came to The Observer and asked that his comment be retracted, stating that he had no idea this was such a sensitive area. He wanted to be sure that it was recognized that this was his own personal opinion, and not the views of the USG.
Lucas said, "I don't think Mr. Biaglow is perfectly moral. I don't think he has a right to judge us."
The LGSU has yet to be given a budget by the finance committee. Lucas said that the reason for the loss of their funding was confusion over whether the group's membership was 90 percent undergraduate, the necessary percentage to receive funding from the USG. She said that one member of the finance committee told the LGSU that they usually ignore the rule about being 90 percent undergraduate, but with the increase in the activity fee it was the new policy to pay stricter attention to the bylaws.
The USG usually requires a membership list to assure that groups have the required membership percentage, but because the LGSU has an "obviously more sensitive" membership this rule was waived, according to Michael. Instead, the USG received verbal assurance from LGSU Advisor Jess Sellers that the group membership is 90 percent undergraduate. Michael conceded that they do fund some groups that have fewer than the required percentage of undergraduates, but said the LGSU originally submitted forms stating 50-60 percent undergraduate.
Members of the LGSU are worried about their budget request, because Biaglow was appointed to the finance committee and they fear he might sway others not to appropriate money. "I hope that we get the money we asked for, and that the student leaders do not let moral biases interfere with their jobs," said Lucas. Keith Moyer, LGSU secretary, added, "Taking into account the new members, I don't see any hope for a budget in the near future."
A new member such as Biaglow will not sway the views of the rest of the committee, according to Michael. He admitted that the committee is to some degree subjective in its appropriations of money, but that they strive to be as objective as possible.
"Organizations are not permitted to discriminate," said Jane Tesso, the USG's appointed liaison. "Students must not act in a prejudicial manner."
"I hope others will leave their minds open for discussion," said Sellers in regard to the funding of the LGSU. He said that he respects Biaglow's opinion but hopes there is a dialogue on values in an open atmosphere. Sellers was concerned about "the student body not doing enough to enhance the perception of minorities and human differences."
Letter to the Editor: Davy disagrees with support of LGSU
Published October 30, 1987
The article you recently published centering around the statement made by a certain Undergraduate Student Government representative made me very angry, but not at the certain representative. I was angry with the apparent moral wimpiness of the rest of the representatives. Not only were they willing to accept a union based solely on an immoral lifestyle, but they were willing to waive requirements in order to support them.
This person, on the other hand, was willing to stand up for his beliefs and this is a credit to anyone's honor. It is true that no one is perfectly moral but at least most people's lifestyles are not based on something as inherently unnatural as homosexuality. I would also like to disagree with the remark made by the Lesbian-Gay Student Union president that the statement made was bigoted. The representative simply said that homosexuality is not morally justifiable. The president of LGSU seemed to agree with this when she said that because the certain representative wasn't "perfectly moral" he couldn't judge gays and lesbians. Doesn't this imply that homosexuality could be judged and condemned on the basis of it being morally wrong?
In conclusion I ask you: Is it bigotry to not sanction lying or, cheating? It is discrimination not to approve of, much less support, a group that promotes marital unfaithfulness? No! Nor is it wrong to not accept immorality in the form of homosexuality.
Letter to the Editor: Homosexuals need help and sympathy
Published November 20, 1987
Although I do not know Lane Davy, I sympathize with his situation. Lane Davy, and only Lane Davy, stands up to affirm a position that most CWRU men would agree with. He takes the malicious name calling and character defaming insults, while we silently agree with him. And why not? Who wants to be called a bigot?
I do not deny that homosexuals pay taxes and activity fees like everyone else. I do not doubt the sincerity of people like Gregory Davis, Kelly Searsmith, and Seth Rich who denounced Davy. But though sincerity is something to esteem greatly, it does not guarantee that one is right.
Davis claims that homosexuality is natural. To be sure worms and slugs reproduce asexually, but every higher form of life reproduces heterosexually. I believe nature has clearly shown us wherein natural sexuality lies.
Homosexuals are physiologically ill. They can have a hormonal imbalance. Many times due to discouraging relationships with members of the opposite sex, otherwise normal people are driven to homosexuality. Our society portrays homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle." I know of a case where a bisexual man went to a psychiatrist for help. Instead of telling the man to renounce homosexuality, the psychiatrist told him to choose whether he wanted men or women. The man chose men.
Homosexuals need counseling, medical treatment, and our sympathy. Instead, we respond with hatred and try to make them feel guilty.
The courts have sent thousands of mentally ill people from institutions, because it was against their "civil rights" to treat them. Today, without proper care, they wander our streets homeless and unemployable. The gays too have been kept from proper care and guidance, so they wander the barren no man's land of an immoral lifestyle.
Letter to the Editor: Homosexuality letter disturbs reader
Published December 4, 1987
I am writing in response to Robert Georgi's letter entitled, "Homosexuals need help and sympathy," which appeared on November 20 1987. I do not know Georgi, nor do I know of the incident which prompted him to write his letter. What I do know is that his letter disturbed me greatly.
One disturbing tangent was Georgi's illogical theorem in which he attempted to prove heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not. He states, "To be sure worms and slugs reproduce asexually, but every higher form of life reproduces heterosexually." I am no logician, but I'd venture to say that his statement does not even prove that slugs and worms are a lower form of life than those that reproduce heterosexually.
This rigid link between sexuality and procreation implied by Georgi deserves comment. Sexuality refers to the way in which we express our sexual functioning. The term can mean different things on different levels. Sexuality can take the form of simple physical gratification. It can be an expression of one's love for another. Sexuality can also be reaffirmed in creating a new life. Although procreation usually occurs through heterosexual intercourse, intercourse per se is not always a sexual act, nor is love always an element.
Georgi's statement that "Homosexuals are physiologically ill," blatantly demonstrates his ignorance. I am honestly intrigued to know what his source of information was for that statement. Presently, the medical profession considers homosexuality a disorder if the person wishes to be heterosexual. Furthermore, people are not driven o homosexuality by a mere "bad late" as Georgi has implied.
Georgi recounts one case of a bisexual man whose "psychiatrist told him to choose whether he wanted men or women." Studies suggest that the sexuality of the general population falls along a bell-shaped curve. One tail includes those people who are completely homosexual. The other tail includes those people who are completely heterosexual. In between the two tails lies the majority of the population who are termed bisexual.
Finally, if Georgi is not homosexual then he cannot sympathize with the socioeconomic prejudices and psychological implications experienced by homosexuals in our society. On the other hand, being homosexual does not mean that one is doomed to wander the streets homeless and unemployable as he so vividly implied. If you honestly care about the problems homosexuals face in our society, I suggest you find out the truth. Only with an honest understanding can you truly show your empathy.
Letter to the Editor: Letter's author lists sources
Published December 4, 1987
Since my last letter, I've had time to reflect on some "errors" I made. One of the objections some people had to my letter was that I did not give any sources on which I based my "opinions." Therefore, I will provide those people who wish to research this point further the titles and authors of these books.
Homosexuality & Hope by Gerard Van Den Aardweg, Ph.D..; Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study by Irving Bieber, Harvey J. Dain, et al; Homosexuality and American Psychiatry by Ronald Bayer; Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality by Daniel Cappon; Gay is not Good by Frank M. du Mas, Ph.D., andHomosexuality by Charles W. Socrarides, M.D.
In my earlier letter I claimed that "homosexuals are physiologically ill." I would like to expand on that. "If there are genetic aberrations or hormonal disturbances of one kind or another, an individual might develop into a sexual cripple," du Mas, p. 59.
Biological factors also make heterosexuality more sensual, and for a more in depth explanation I refer the curious to page 64 of du Mas's book. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study presents a systematic study of 100 male heterosexuals and 106 male homosexuals in psychoanalytic treatment with members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts. At the end of this book one finds a section entitled: "the results of treatment." I quote there from, "Of the total homosexual sample, 74 patients had terminated psychoanalysis while 32 had not as yet completed treatment; 29 patients had become exclusively heterosexual during the course of psychoanalytic treatment."
So, there is hope for the future provided the socio-cultural factors are favorable—that is provided society does not reinforce homosexual tendencies (i.e. recognize the Lesbian/Gay Student Union), the cure ultimately rests with the individual motivation and his ability to change," preface to Toward an Understanding of Homosexuality.