Note: This website has no control over the ads placed on it. Caveat emptor.

[Gay History Document that speaks to today's gay men from May 1978] [c. 15,750 words] [End]

[CAUTION: This site is intended for gay men. Anyone who might be offended by frank talk between gay men should not proceed further down this page.]

H2IQ .............for Homosexuals of High IQ

[then at] 446 West 46th Street, 1R
New York, NY 10036
[phone numbers then]

(Grapefruit juice is OK tho)


[Clickable Contents, after announcement of the month's speaker:  New format and approach; Letters; Missing Issues; warnings re "Man's World Association", "Dramatis Personae", yacht cruises; "There Is No Shame in Honest Loving" (poem); "Offer Declined" (little poem); mentions of homosexuality in the media; "Tried" (poem); "Canapés for Thought" (department); "cc: H2IQ" (department; this time, a letter that denounces "sex-change" operations); Graffiti; "Be thou my God" (excerpt from Whitman poem); "Know What You're Doing" (legal definitions of "sodomy", etc.); VD and You; chess queen; "We Passed" (poem); the function of art (quotes); Donald Cameron Scot on Anita Bryant, growing up hating oneself; editor's reply, growing up accepting oneself; "Poets to Come" (Walt Whitman poem); gay sonnets from Shakespeare; [old] subscription information]

H2 MEETS Sunday, May 21, 1978, at 6:30 p.m. at address above, apartment of L. Craig Schoonmaker (phone from corner; door locked). Refreshments BYO (Near Ninth Av [International Food] Festival, same day)

SPEAKER Jerry Schiff of the Greater Gotham Business Council (GGBC), a group of gay businesspeople, will speak on the topic

BUY GAY: What from Whom.

If you'd prefer to patronize gay-owned businesses, this meeting will tell you what kinds of products and services are available. Jerry will also describe GGBC and its activities. A half-hour presentation will be followed by questions and discussion.

THE NEWSLETTER has not appeared, nor has H2 met in two months because despite the fact that I asked to be relieved of program responsibilities several months ago, no one came forward. If I am expected to do all the work of organizing meetings as well as producing the newsletter, the group will meet only when I feel like calling a meeting. That is no way to run an organization, and I repeat my appeal for formation of a Central Committee, by any name. H2 has had some VERY good discussions, and the small-group format works very well in making people feel free to speak. Such meetings are worth continuing — under somebody else's leadership. My personality is not at all right for an organizer.

While only a few members know it, I am much more militant than I have permitted myself to be in meetings, and bending backwards has proved unsatisfying to me. So I am making this into a special issue of the Newsletter, more in tune with my militancy, to see how a newsletter more satisfying to me goes over.

To enable the nonmilitant or even anti-militant members to skip over my parts of this issue, and because I wish more narrowly to select my audience, to those capable of understanding that I see almost everything differently from most people, I am putting all my more-personal contributions into Fcnetik respelling, and in a different typeface. To understand my point of view requires a certain effort, and deciphering phonetic spelling will put one into that framework of effort. — LCS [Return to "Contents"]

LETTERS  I am interested in learning the origin of the word "gay" as it is currently used to mean homosexual. I would appreciate any information you could give and/or the names of sources where I may find info.

Frank Vlastnik, [then at] 6 Charles St, #6B, NY 10014

I again enjoyed participating in H2IQ's intellectual potpourri (the February meeting). What a constructive alternative to the tube! I wish it were possible to preserve a recording of the sessions on tape. Although the description we drew of gay life here was largely one of abysmal frustration, I felt the subject had been dealt with realistically. A precis of discussions would be a welcome addition to the Nltr.

The poems [in the Feb nltr] were deeply affecting. They are a beautiful expression of the gay experience and of those encounters which at various times are both thrilling and disappointing because of their evanescence.

Now a few words re the Burdick-Schoonmaker dialog. First, gayety is a wide-ranging topic and cannot be disposed of in so short a space. How one dispose of his life depends on factor such as family background, native intelligence, talent, education, etc. I agree that the presence of large numbers of gay people in NYC is a very constructive factor, as there is always safety in numbers. The big positive influence is the fact that so many gay individuals of status and position have started to declare themselves openly, lending the weight of their prestige to the movement. Unfortunately, many of us cannot afford the risk of doing likewise. But I greatly admire the ones who have stepped forward. It could mean that our society has begun to accept human sexuality in its various modes of express, but it has a long way to go. It must still fee itself from the yoke of Judeo-Christian bondage and its mind-enslaving fantasies. The ecclesiastical bigwigs will never relinquish their throttle hold on the minds of their adherents, who slavishly follow them just as they have for centuries.

Re standards for membership, are intelligence tests reliable? [Appreciate that this question came from someone who passed the intelligence tests required for membership in this group.] There is usually a large component of math in every intelligence test and I have heard that gay people seemingly do not genetically inherit mathematical excellence, which would indicate that for gay people to be adequately tested, a test would have to be devised specifically for gay people. Gay people seem to possess deeper aesthetic [sic] sensibilities than the hetero segment and I would say that it is related to intelligence. Are these qualities adequately tested on standard IQ tests?

Irwin Tuck, Brooklyn, New York

ERWIN! Hou kan yu ishu sux klaptrap? Fre yaurself frum stereeoetieps! (IRWIN! How can you issue such claptrap? Free yourself from stereotypes!) [NOTE: This and other chunks of "Fcnetik", the phonetic text in this work, are written in the original version of Craig Schoonmaker's phonetic spelling reform, in which (1) X (which has no sound of its own in Traditional Orthography ("T.O.") but merely indicates sounds like KS ("exit"), GZ ("exist"), GZH ("luxurious"), or Z ("xylophone"), so can be reassigned) was assigned to the "CH" sound (as in "church"); (2) the short, neutral vowel sound schwa (A in "about", the second E in "telephone", U as in "circus", et cetera) is written "C"; (3) there are no "glides" between adjoining vowels: "stereeoetieps"; and (4) the unvoiced sound of TH is expressed by THH ("thhing"). (In the revised form of Fanetik, which is set out at length, with many thousands of words of sample text, at, (1) CH is used for the CH sound in "church"; (2) A is used for schwa; (3) either Y or W is used as a glide to separate adjoining vowels: "eeyon" (eon), "huewever" (whoever), "stereeyatiep"; and (4) the unvoiced TH is written TTH (as in "Matthew"). The original newsletter did not have a T.O. transliteration alongside; here, however, as a convenience to the casual reader, I provide a standardly spelled text after all Fcnetik passages.] [Return to "Contents"]

HELP! Something is wrong with central files. Missing from what should be a complete set of H2IQ Newsletters are those for June and July, and September and October 1977, plus any that may have been issued between May and December 1976. If anyone has any of the above, we implore him to send us either a Xerox or the original. We'll return any you want back. Please search your stores. Thanks.  [Return to "Contents"]

MAN'S WORLD ASSOCIATION is a group which claims, among others, our May speaker, Jerry Schiff, as a member of its "Proposed" Board of Directors. Other prestigious names are listed in the same "Proposed" Board. But it turns out that those names were listed without their permission and at least most, if not every last one, of those distinguished gay personages have absolutely nothing to do with MWAssn. Jerry Schiff is suspicious of the sources of funds for MWA and believes that the services it advertises are NOT up to the claims, if they exist at all. Beware. Indeed, it's probably a good idea to check with people directly when you see their names used for any commercial outfit.

ANOTHER WARNING You may have heard of a "very naughty party: sponsored by an outfit called "Dramatis Personae". This is apparently a wide-open orgy. What you may not know is that Dramatis Personae is owned and operated by a heterosexual couple. You may be surprised at who shows up. And your money will support heterosexual exploiters.

EXPLOITATION OF HOMOSEXUALS is not limited to heterosexuals, it would seem. An ostensibly gay outfit called C.M. Social Club Inc., with the cooperation of Lambda Travel, is offering weekend "yacht cruises" [from Manhattan Island] to Fire Island for $300-$600 per person, or 7-day cruises to Key West from Fort Lauderdale for $700-$1000, or 7-day cruises to Fire Island for $600-$1200. Sounds like a profitable operation. An operation that profitable might also be called a "ripoff". Must we really pay thru the nose for the privilege of being to ourselves? [Realize that this was 1978, so to get comparable numbers for today's economy — and thus to understand my indignation at the time — you would have to approximately double the figures given here.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Baths is a penile institution. OVERHEARD: "The men's-clothes field is sewn up. Stefan Burroughs is designing men's clothes now but only after breaking into women's." Cocksucking is a lost art. Warning: Self-flagellation may result in broken arms. (Roadhouse [bar]) [Return to "Contents"]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(faur MJS [ostensibool straet]
(for MJS, ostensible straight)
Faur muntths I daird not speek
The feelingz thaat gru faur yu,
Faur feer that yu, imperfckt az yu or,
Wood seez cpon thc nolcj uv mi kair
And yuez it
tu hert me.
For months I dared not speak
The feelings that grew for you,
For fear that you, imperfect as you are,
Would seize upon the knowledge of my care
And use it
To hurt me.
I feerd yu'd tthingk me fuel
If I wuz raung im mi persepshcnz.
I feerd I miet embarcs yu
And poot yu under presher.
I feerd.
I feared you'd think me fool
If I was wrong in my perceptions.
I feared I might embarrass you
And put you under pressure.
I feared.
I feerd beekauz I feel that yu
Kanot be yaurself, faur shaem
Uv hwut yu kood be witth me.
Faur shuer, yu'd be cshaemd if that hwix yu miet feel faur me
Wer not yueneek
But kood witth eez spring faurthh faur thhouzcndz maur.
Faur shuer I'd be upset if reexing out tu me
Wer meerle steping oever me tu uther men yu daird not seek beefaur.
I'v helpt utherz reex themselvz bi reexing utherz.
I'm not that jenrcs, unkcnsernd cbout yu, tho.
I feel pczesiv — hwut I fre, I wont held fast tu me.
I feared because I feel that you
Cannot be yourself, for shame
Of what you could be with me.
For sure, you'd be ashamed if that which you might feel for me
Were not unique
But could with ease spring forth for thousands more.
For sure I'd be upset if reaching out to me
Were merely stepping over me to other men you dared not seek before.
I've helped others reach themselves by reaching others.
I'm not that generous, unconcerned about you, though.
I feel possessive — what I free, I want held fast to me.
I'v feerd tu laung.
I no I miet be raung.
I no I miet embarcs yu.
I no tu

yu kan hert withhout reestraent.

I've feared too long.
I know I might be wrong.
I know I might embarrass you.
I know too

you can hurt without restraint.

But I speek nou
Faur me az mux az yu
Tu sa az simple az I kan:
Thair iz no shaem in oncst, onercabool luving
But I speak now
For me as much as you
To say as simply as I can:
There is no shame in honest, honorable loving
Eevcn hwen unreeternd
Eevcn hwen fcrbidcn, discpruevd bi aileecn utherz
Eevcn hwen hoeplcs problcmz seem tu ban good end.
Even when unreturned
Even when forbidden, disapproved by alien others
Even when hopeless problems seem to ban good end.
So hert me if yu wil.
Deeni me if yu must
frum shaem
frum oncst lak uv kompcrcbool feeling
aur ene uther kauz.
So hurt me if you will.
Deny me if you must
from shame
from honest lack of comparable feeling
or any other cause.
But no that I'm no fuel
Tu dair tu luv yu oepcnle.
Thair iz no shaem in oncast, onercbool feeling,
No raung in simpool, soel-crizcn luving,
No horm in luving tux, in bodeez shairing.
But know that I'm no fool
To dare to love you openly
There is no shame in honest, honorable feeling,
No wrong in simple, soul-arisen loving,
No harm in loving touch, in bodies sharing.
And thair'z no problcm just tu big
No outsied discpruevcl just tu straung
Tu shaek a tru cfinite.
And there's no problem just too big.
No outside disapproval just too strong
To shake a true affinity.
Soelz tux and minggcl, and frum that miks eemerj
Wun escns
Nu, and pyuer, joics frum kcres and pla —
Ruf pla, spaurts, tumbling in thc gras in briet spring sunshien —
Pees kcmpleet in joint reepoez.
Souls touch and mingle, and from that mix emerge
One essence
New, and pure, joyous from caress and play —
Rough play, sports, tumbling in the grass in bright spring sunshine —
Peace complete in joint repose.
Lafing, smiecling faescz
Join in lasting memcre,
Az lief, da bi da, foolfilz thc men hu plej
eex tu the uther
aul tha hav tu giv
az laung az tha ma liv.
Laughing, smiling faces
Join in lasting memory,
As life, day by day, fulfills the men who pledge
each to the other
all they have to give
As long as they may live.
That's aul that materz. That's all that matters.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I auferd mieself tu the aejcz
And not eevcn mien wontcd me.

Wun aej robz aul.


I offered myself to the ages
And not even mine wanted me.

One age robs all.

[Return to "Contents"] 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


"Last year, an NBC directive instructed [Grizzly Adams TV show] to put women into an episode. He contends the order was prompted by women executives at the network . . . . I went ahead against my own judgment and shot an episode we called 'Woman in the Wilderness.' Then we put it through testing and got a sharply negative reaction — our audience didn't want any women in the wilderness . . . . What they like is eternal summer in the primeval, womanless wilderness." TV GUIDE, 1/28/78

The same intrusive hand of media feminists can be seen in other places. For instance, the final episode of the comedy miniseries Joe and Valerie had its central scenes played in the men's room — where Valerie deliberately and without any sense of impropriety intruded and barred beer-driven men from entry while she and Joe and Joe's two roommates played an argument and then love scene (Joe and Valerie only in the last). The executive producer of that miniseries was, of course, a woman. * * *

Joan Rivers: "The two brightest audiences are gays and college kids." (Large cheer from audience.)
George Carlin: "I wonder which those [cheering] are."
JR: Maybe gay college kids . . ,
I think Anita Bryant is [bleeped], because when one of her kids loses a tooth, who's gonna come?" (Tonight Show, 3/10/78) * * *

Gabriel Kaplan (in routine on the recordings various celebrities might put on their answering machines): "Dr. Renee Richards — Leave your number quickly or you'll be cut off." (Tonight Show, 5/5/78) [Return to "Contents"]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ +


I wood be I: man, man-luving.
I wood be me: man, man-luvd.

But I am he huem utherz se.
And I am him huem utherz yuez, but du not chuez.
     I xuez, az hoepfool stort, but am not xoezcn.
     Am tried, but not laung wontcd.

I would be I: man, man-loving.
I would be me: man, man-loved.

But I am he whom others se.
And I am him whom others use, but do not choose.
     I choose, as hopeful start, but am not chosen.
     Am tried, but not long wanted. 
Thoez iez that klik, in kwik ctenshcn
Beelaung tu men hu win, and seem so oepcn
then kloez and muev tu thair nekst konkwest.

I reemaen beehiend, beemyuezd, and puzoold, hert;

And no reekwest
Faur reezcnz
Sterz tha slietcst sens.
Those eyes that click, in quick attention,
Belong to men who win, and seem so open,
then close and move to their next conquest.

I remain behind, bemused, and puzzled, hurt;

And no request
For reasons
Stirs the slightest sense.

[Return to "Contents"]

° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o°


"Man must understand what he can do in the way of evil before he can even pretend to be good. This is the beginning of morality, the psychological or spiritual or, in a religious tradition, the mythological basis that makes morality possible . . . . Our salvation is not in any sappy acceptance of every aspect of ourselves as good; it is in an understanding of our good and evil portions.' Letter by Stephen C. Ausband, AssocProf/English, Averett College, Danville, VA, in HARPER'S, May 1978.

Ode to English: Turkish "is an agglutinating language, adding suffixes to invariable roots to make words which may be the equivalent of a whole English phrase or sentence . . . . The main part of a statement comes at the end of the sentence, preceded by its modifiers and qualifiers. English prepositions are represented in Turkish by postpositions. Thus "Ingiltere konsolosluguna yakin otelde oturn arkadasimiz dün evimize geldi,' literally 'England consulate-its-to near hotel-in living friend-our yesterday house-our-to came,' means 'Our friend who lives in the hotel near the British Consulate came to our house yesterday.'" — "Turkish Language" article in 1973 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

John Stuart Martin, deceased former editor of TIME Magazine "held that TIME should be written from the point of view of 'the man in the moon at the end of the current century.'"

THE CHAMELEON, "a journal with distinctly homosexual preoccupations, appeared in England, with Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas as contributors. Its first number was its last." — AESTHETES AND DECADENTS OF THE 1890'S, Karl Beckson, Brooklyn College/CUNY

Never stik yaur tung out at a lezbeecn, aur tern yaur bak on a fagct. [Never stick your tongue out at a lesbian, or turn your back on a faggot.]

THE TORONTO STAR has run a number of personal ads of this general form: "ATTRACTIVE young man, heterosexual, seeks companion." ?!

Oh Wilde, Verlaine, and Baudelaire,/their lips were wet with wine;
Oh poseur, pimp, and libertine!/Oh cynic, sot, and swine!
Oh votaries of velvet vice! . . . Oh gods of light divine.
— Robert Service

[Return to "Contents"]


cc: H2IQ

[To HARPER'S, re "Cutting the Ties that Bind", May 1978]
Hwut or litool gerlz maed uv?
A slit, tu tits, and eelektrolisis.
That's hwut litool gerls or maed uv.
What are little girls made of?
A slit, two tits, and electrolysis.
That's what little girls are made of.
Roger Stor rietle cpoezcz "transekshuecl" operaeshcnz, but cserts sum vere sile orgyoomcnts. It iz not nescsere tu orgyu that merder wood beekum epidemik if lauz cgenst merder wer endcd. Faur it iz not 22,000 merderz a yeer in the Y.S. hwix iz raung but thc merder uv eevcn wun perscn. It iz eenuf tu sa that merder iz a graev morcl eevool tu justifi lauz cgenst it. And so witth kastraeshcn. Roger Starr rightly opposes "transsexual" operations, but asserts some very silly arguments. It is not necessary to argue that murder would become epidemic if laws against murder were ended. For it is 22,000 murders a year in the U.S. which is wrong but the murder of even one person. It is enough to say that murder is a grave moral evil to justify laws against it. And so with castration.
If a man waukt intu a dokter'z aufis and sed, "Look, I no I'm a man, but I'm a kcnsistcntle pasiv hoemoesekshuecl eneewa and wont tu maek it witth straet men. So giv me the operaeshcn so I kan fuel straet men, get mared tu a man, and hav aul thc sangkshcnz and prctekshcnz uv thc lau", no repyootcbool dokter, no repyootcbool hospitcl in thc werld wood perfaurm "transekshuecl" serjere on him. Yet hu iz maur insaen, thc man cbuv aur a man hu sez "I am a woomcn trapt in thc bode uv a man"? If a man walked into a doctor's office and said, "Look, I know I'm a man, but I'm a consistently passive homosexual anyway and want to make it with straight men. So give me the operation so I can fool straight men, get married to a man, and have all the sanctions and protections of the law", no reputable doctor, no reputable hospital in the world would perform "transsexual" surgery on him. Yet who is more insane, the man above or a man who says "I am a woman trapped in the body of a man?"
In reezult, thair wood be no difrcns hwether thc ferst aur sekcnd man wer myuetilaetcd. He wood stil reemaen a bieclojikool mail, and ene seks he miet hav withh a man wood stil be hoemoesekshuecl. Hiz portner wood stil be fueld and misyuezd. And so wood scsiecte. And so wood thc viktim uv the operaeshcn. In result, there would be no difference whether the first or second man were mutilated. He would still remain a biological male, and any sex he might have with a man would still be homosexual. His partner would still be fooled and misused. And so would society. And so would the victim of the operation.
Scsiecte plaez a neet trik in thhroeing thc jender iedentite uv hoemoesekshueclz intu kcnfyuezhcn bi saeing that a perscn hu iedentifiez men az seks and luv objekts haz tu be a woomcn, then saeing that a man kan "beekum" a woomcn bi thc nief. Kyuet. In aurder tu send maur and maur kcnfyuezd hoemoesekshueclz tu thc nief, scsiecte wil li cbout hwut manhood and woomcnhood or, it wil faulsifi rekerdz and endaurs kontrcdictcre standerdz uv pruef (faur the Climpiks, a kroemcsoem test guvernz; faur tenis, a kaurt paeper wil du). Aul beekauz scsiecte reefyuezcz tu aksept thc fakt that a man kan luv a man — sekshuecle. Miet, yu se, ma not maek riet, but it duz deefien riet. Thus, kastraeshcn uv Juez and uther dcspiezd mienoriteez wuz riet hwen Hitler wuz in pouwer. And kastraeshcn uv jender-kcnfyuezd hoemoesekshueclz in the Yuenitcd Staets iz riet az laung az intolercnt heteroesekshueclz or in pouwer. Society plays a neat trick in throwing the gender identity of homosexuals into confusion by saying that a person who identifies men as sex and love objects has to be a woman, then saying that a man can "become" a woman by the knife. Cute. In order to send more and more confused homosexuals to the knife, society will lie about what manhood and womanhood are, it will falsify records and endorse contradictory standards of proof (for the Olympics, a chromosome test governs; for tennis, a court paper will do). All because society refuses to accept the fact that a man can love a man — sexually. Might, you see, may not make right, but it does define right. Thus, castration of Jews and other despised minorities was right when Hitler was in power. And castration of gender-confused homosexuals in the United States is right as long as intolerant heterosexuals are in power.
Thus it hapcnz that thc Mad Sieyentist iz lues in ouwer hospitoolz. Mad Sieyentists hav akxuecle implantcd a hiedraulik pump in a woomcn'z bode tu kauz a maek-bileev "peenis" tu stand eerekt. Thc Dokter az Booxer iz aulso cliev and wel and living in the Yuenietcd Staets, having bin band frum Jermcne bi Nuercmberg. And tu thhingk that it iz we hu preeziedcd oever Nuercmberg! Thus it happens that the Mad Scientist is loose in our hospitals. Mad Scientists have actually implanted a hydraulic pump in a woman's body to cause a make-believe "penis" to stand erect. The Doctor as Butcher is also alive and well and living in the United States, having been banned from Germany by Nuremberg. And to think that it is we who presided over Nuremberg!
Scsiecte insults wimcn hwen it sez that a woomcn iz just a man withhout a peenis. Scsiecte insults men hwen it sez that a man iz oenle a peenis. Scsiecte csaults hoemoesekshueclz hwen it permits and thus enkercjcz serjkcle kamcflozhd seks beetween men but banz seks beetween men hu or foole eekwipt. Scsiecte cfendz truethh hwen it sez that a man hu iz myuetilaetcd iz, bi thc slash uv a nief, maed intu a woomcn. Scsiecte csaults hyuemanite hwen it kastraets the insaen. And scsiecte csaults scsiecte hwen it inkaurpcraets blaetcnt liez intu its vere fabrik, and justifiez the unjustifiecbool: kastraeshcn uv hoemoesekshueclz. Society insults women when it says that a woman is just a man without a penis. Society insults men when it says that a man is only a penis. Society assaults homosexuals when it permits and thus encourages surgically camouflaged sex between men but bans sex between men who are fully equipped. Society offends truth when it says that a man who is mutilated is, by the slash of a knife, made into a woman. Society assaults humanity when it castrates the insane. And society assaults society when it incorporates blatant lies into its very fabric, and justifies the unjustifiable: castration of homosexuals.
Thair iz no problcm in "iedentifieing" jender, saev faur thc rair — and aulwaez steril — biecloljikool intersekscz. Men hu hav fotherd xildrcn or beeing kastraetcd in the Yuenietcd Staets tooda, bi "dokterz" hu justifi thc vere egzistcns uv "transekshuecl" operaeshcnz on thc baesis that tha or valid faur bieclojikool intersekscz — and thairfaur, preezuemcble, must be valid faur siekclojikool intersekscz. But thair iz no sux thhing az a siekclojikool interseks, oenle a wel-cjustcd aur malcjustcd perscn. Thairfaur, a dokter hu kastraets a man hu sez he iz a woomcn, iz not wun hwit les a kwak than wood be a dokter hu inserts a liet in thc ruef uv thc moutth uv a perscn hu sez he'z a reefrijeraeter. The inmaets or in xorj uv the csielcm. There is no problem "identifying" gender, save for the rare — and always sterile — biological intersexes. Men who have fathered children are being castrated in the United States today, by "doctors" who justify the very existence of "transsexual" operations on the basis that they are valid for biological intersexes — and, therefore, presumably, must be valid for psychological intersexes. But there is no such thing as a psychological intersex, only a well-adjusted or maladjusted person. Therefore, a doctor who castrates a man who says he is a woman, is not one whit less a quack than would be a doctor who inserts a light in the roof of the mouth of a person who says he's a refrigerator. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
I am not jenrale parcnoid, and I doen't se kcnspeercseez evreehwair, but thair IZ a Kastraeshcn Kcnspeercse. It kcnsists uv thc Dik Kavcts and Tom Sniederz and aul the utherz in thc meedeec hu spotliet "transekshueclz" and reefer tu them az "she", plus thc kaurts that deeklair that a Rixerd Raskind kan be and iz a Rcna Rixerdz. It kcnsists uv a hoest uv "liberool", "simpcthhetik" peepool hu mistikle se "difikulte" in iedentifieing aur deefiening jender. I kanot pas oever sux advckcse az meer stuepidite, beekauz mene uv thc peepool pooshing "transekshuecl" operaeshcnz or not at aul stuepid. But tha or dens if tha thhingk that hoemoesekshueclz or thc saem thhing az wimcn and so miet just az wel hav thair jenitoolz lopt auf; aur that thae doen't dczerv tu be men beekauz tha doen't du thc "riet" thhing withh thair jenitailyc. I perscncle doen't feel thhretcnd bi this kcnspeercse, but I du feel fyuere that it iz cloud tu egzist and tu dcstroi (Rojer Stor duzn't menshcn tha sueisiedz and haurmoencle-induest termincl kanserz suferd bi mene poest-operctiv "transekshueclz"). And I se mi peepool, hoemoesekshuecl men, az viktimz uv an infekshcs insanite hwich must be stopt, and the infekterz dcstroid. I doen't reegord "Rena Rixerdz" az a hormlcs cmyuezmcnt but az a monster hu iz influewensing mene unstaebool peepool. I am not generally paranoid, and I don't see conspiracies everywhere, but there IS a Castration Conspiracy. It consists of the Dick Cavetts and Tom Snyders and all the others in the media who spotlight "transsexuals" and refer to them as "she", plus the courts that declare that a Richard Raskind can be and is a Rene Richards. It consists of a host of "liberal", "sympathetic" people who mystically see "difficulty" in identifying or defining gender. I cannot pass over such advocacy as mere stupidity, because many of the people pushing "transsexual" operations are not at all stupid. But they are dense if they think that homosexuals are the same thing as women and so might just as well have their genitals lopped off; aur that they don't deserve to be men because they don't do the "right" thing with their genitalia. I personally don't feel threatened by this conspiracy, but I do feel fury that it is allowed to exist and to destroy (Roger Starr doesn't mention the suicides and hormonally-induced terminal cancers suffered by many post-operative "transsexuals"). And I see my people, homosexual men, as victims of an infectious insanity which must be stopped, and the infectors destroyed. I don't regard "Rene Richards" as a harmless amusement but as a monster who is influencing many unstable people.
The insaen or entietoold tu li tu themselvz. Scsiecte iz not. And scsiecte hoeldz thc saefte uv the insaen az a trust: we or not scpoezd tu let them hert themselvz. The insane are entitled to lie to themselves. Society is not. And society holds the safety of the insane as a trust: we are not supposed to let them hurt themselves.
"Transekshuecl" operaeshcnz or a kriem cgenst hyeumanite and cgenst truethh. That iz reezcn eenuf tu ban them — evreehwair, and faur aul tiem. "Transsexual" operations are a crime against humanity and against truth. That is reason enough to ban them — everywhere, and for all time.


[In 1999, an average of three "sex-change" operations are committed each day in the United States alone. Disgraceful.] [Return to "Contents"]

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

GRAFFITI  Kilroy was queer.  Secretariat fucks queers. [It was reported in media at the time that the great racehorse and Triple Crown winner Secretariat was not working out well as a highly compensated "stud" because he was apparently homosexual!] Special! Blow jobs 15¢. With lipstick, 20¢. Your choice of color, 25¢. My choice of color, 5¢. MICHAEL DUNN GOES UP. [Actor Michael Dunn was a dwarf.] Necrophiliac seeks warm relationship with dead man. Must have own mortuary. Must be aggressive. GAY IS THE ONLY WAY, RIGHT? No, there are many wrong ways also. INTO FULL RUBBER. A bode kondcm?? [A body condom??]

— All from [Greenwich Village gay bar] Uncle Paul's men's room, NYC

[Return to "Contents"]

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Lover divine and perfect Comrade,
Waiting content, invisible yet, but certain,
Be thou my God. 

Thou, thou, the Ideal Man,
Fair, able, beautiful, content, and loving,
Complete in body and dilate in spirit,
Be thou my God.

— Walt Whitman, from "Gods", 1870 [Return to "Contents"]

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "


Definitions from BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (4th Ed, rev)

"SODOMY. A carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature, or with a beast . . . . often defined in statutes and judicial decisions as meaning 'the crime against nature,' the 'crimen innominatum [Latin for "unspeakable crime"],' or as carnal copulation, against the order of nature, by man with man, or, in the same unnatural manner, with woman or with a beast , . . . But, strictly speaking it should be used only as equivalent to 'pederasty,' that is, the sexual act as performed by a man upon the person of another man or a boy by penetration of the anus. . . . The term might also, without any great violence to its original meaning, be so extended as to cover the same act when performed in the same manner by a man upon the person of a woman. Another possible method of unilateral sexual connection, by penetration of the mouth (penem in orem alii immittere, vel penem alii in orem recipere [Latin for "to put the penis in the mouth of another, or to receive the penis of another in the mouth"]) is not properly called 'sodomy,' but 'fellation.' That this does not constitute sodomy within the meaning of a statute is held in [some jurisdictions] . . . but a greater number . . . hold otherwise. . . . On the other hand bestiality is the carnal copulation of a human being with a brute, or animal of the sub-human orders of the opposite sex. It is not identical with sodomy, though the two terms are often confused in legal writings and sometimes in statutes. . . . Buggery is a term rarely used in statutes, but apparently including both sodomy (in the widest sense) and bestiality as above defined.

FELLATIO, or FELLATION. The offense committed with the male sexual organ and the mouth." Oh, go ahead, man — we won't be offended.[Return to "Contents"]

After sevrcl luke yeerz I reescntle kcntraktcd VD — cgen — and wuz cgen reemiendcd uv the cbyues uv hoemoesekshueclz bi publik helthh authhoriteez. It iz an oepcn seekrct that for and awa moest uv thc men hu go tu at leest wun aur tu uv theez kliniks in Nu Yaurk or hoemoesekshuecl. Yet at aul but wun staej uv thc prosesing at theez kliniks, hoemoesekshueclz or kcnfruntcd bi wimcn intrueding intu thair seks lievz. In wun uv theez kliniks faur mene yeerz eevcn wun uv tha dokterz wuz a woomcn, and thc men hu did not deemand a mail dokter wer reekwieyerd tu bair thair sekshuecl aurgcnz tu inspekshcn bi a woomcn. Ferther, a feemail ners administerz injekshcnz intu thc buts uv hoemoesekshueclz. Thc point iz maur than obveecs that faur hoemoesekshuecl men, the as iz a deesiedcdle sekshuecl aireec, and the insershcn uv a sirinj intu thair as iz simbolik sekshuecl penctraeshcn. Tha "hoemoesekshuecl" men hu submit tu sux vieclaeshcn, out uv kouwerdis aur a pervers kik, disgraes themselvz and cfend hoemoesekshuealite. After several lucky years I recently contracted VD — again — and was again reminded of the abuse of homosexuals by public health authorities. It is an open secret that far and away most of the men who go to at least one or two of these clinics in New York are homosexual. Yet at all but one stage of the processing at these clinics, homosexuals are confronted by women intruding into their sex lives. In one of these clinics for many years even one of the doctors was a woman, and the men who did not demand a male doctor were required to bare their sexual organs to inspection by a woman. Further, a female nurse administers injections into the butts of homosexuals. The point is more than obvious that for homosexual men, the ass is a decidedly sexual area, and the insertion of a syringe into their ass is symbolic of sexual penetration. The "homosexual" men who submit to such violation, out of cowardice or a perverse kick, disgrace themselves and offend homosexuality.
Thc preetens that a ners iz just a ners — nueter, az it wer — iz maur than nieyeev: it iz a li. No wun saen iz kaepcbool uv sepcraeting a perscn frum hiz aur her jender, and eneebude hu sez he duz iz a damd lieyer. Thus a hoemoesekshuecl man hu submits tu sux vieclaeshcn uv hiz sekshuecl prievcse bi wimcn iz submiting tu siekclojikool seks withh that woomcn. Thc konsckwens uv sux a submishcn must be eether a loewering uv self-reespekt (and hiz self-reespekt wood hav tu be prite lo [faur him] tu submit tu sux vieclaeshcn tu beegin withh; thus ferther loewering iz vere self-dcstruktiv) aur a kcnfyuezhcn uv self-imcj az a hoemoesekshuecl (and ouwer hoemoesekshuecl iedentite, hord-wun aulwaez, kan oenle be hormd bi reegreshcn tu an erleeyer, wers staet uv sekshuecl kcnfyuezhcn). If hoemoesekshueclz' pried in self az hoemoesekshuecl wer graeter than thair shaem, tha wood insist [on] — deemand — treetmcnt bi a mail dokter aur mail ners, eevcn at thc risk aur akxuecl kaust uv kreeaeting a seen. I am the oenle hoemoesekshuecl I no hu duz so insist and haz indeed faut and wun sux a fiet. The pretense that a nurse is just a nurse — neuter, as it were — is more than naive: it is a lie. No one sane is capable of separating a person from his or her gender, and anybody who says he does is a damned liar. Thus a homosexual man who submits to such violation of his sexual privacy by women is submitting to psychological sex with that woman. The consequence of such a submission must be either a lowering of self-respect (and his self-respect would have to be pretty low [for him] to submit to such violation to begin with; thus further lowering is very self-destructive) or a confusion of self-image as a homosexual (and our homosexual identity, hard-won always, can only be harmed by regression to an earlier, worse state of sexual confusion). If homosexuals' pride in self as homosexuals were greater than their shame, they would insist [on] — demand — treatment by a male doctor or mail nurse, even at the risk or actual cost of creating a scene. I am the only homosexual I know who does so insist and has indeed fought and won such a fight.
After treetmcnt, ouwer hoemoesekshuecl man iz reekwieyerd tu undergo an intervyu bi feemail publik-helthh investigaeterz hu tri tu presher him intu reeveeling hiz sekshuecl portnerz. It iz ESENSHCL that NO hoemoesekshuecl at ENE TIEM koeopteraet in sux investigaeshcnz. Ferst, the invaezhcn uv yaur-and-hiz sekshuecl prievcse iz uterle improper faur ene guvernmcnt, and espeshcle improper faur feemail investigaeterz; sekcnd, beekauz dcspiet klaemz that publik-helthh rekerz or konfidenshcl, tha cparcntle or NOT. After treatment, our homosexual man is required to undergo an interview by female public-health investigators who try to pressure him into revealing his sexual partners. It is ESSENTIAL that NO homosexual at ANY TIME cooperate in such investigations. First, the invasion of your-and-his sexual privacy is utterly improper for any government, and especially improper for female investigators; second, because despite claims that public-health records are confidential, they apparently are NOT.
I kwoet frum Nuezleter #26 uv thc Hoemoesekshuecl Infermaeshcn Senter uv Laus Anjclcs, speeking uv the investigaseshcn uv tha Huestcn merderz [bakfont] I quote from Newsletter #26 of the Homosexual Information Center of Los Angeles, speaking of the investigation of the Houston murders:
[a number of boys and young men were murdered after sexual abuse by a trio of psychotics, one of whom was later himself murdered by the other two]: "since the sex act that brings about the venereal disease is a crime, a homosexual who acquires a venereal infection automatically incriminates himself and his partners when he supplies information concerning his sex practices to public health officials or their agents. . . .[the Houston] chief of detectives . . . picked up the phone to call . . . the public health service. He was working on a lead regarding the queer murders, and he wanted to look at the records of gay cases on file at the VD clinic. The information was supposed to be confidential, but then so were FBI and IRS files. After Watergate even the very naive had shed their illusions concerning such things. . . . On Monday, August 13, Buckman . . . examined the records, identifying contacts having been coded as homosexual. Less than a week later a partial list of the names appeared in the LA TIMES as a tie-in with a dirty picture and call boy service . . . . As long as homosexual acts remain a crime, venereal infections resulting from the acts should not be reported to public health clinics. Public records are public . . . a homosexual has a moral obligation not to disclose the names of his sex partners . . . a man would have to be a fool to believe that . . . law enforcement officers . . . can't by one means or another examine public health records."
So, go tu a klinik, if yu wish, but deemand yaur riet tu be treetcd withh dignite and withh reespekt faur yaur sekshuecl prievcse az a hoemoesekshuecl man. (Hyuemcn treetmcnt faur hyuemcn beeingz iz a welkcm nu muevmcnt in tha helthh feeld; so yu need not be retiscnt.) Thc job uv tha klinik iz tu treet YU, not tu invaed yaur seks lief aur sekshuecl prievcse, naur tu trak doun thc men yu hav had seks withh. YU or thc wun hu MUST tel yaur kontakts tu se a dokter [if yu noe them]. That, tu, iz a morcl obligaeshcn. So, go to a clinic, if you wish, but demand your right to be treated with dignity and with respect for your sexual privacy as a homosexual man. (Human treatment for human beings is a welcome new movement in the health field; so you need not be reticent.) The job of the clinic is to treat YOU, not to invade your sex life or sexual privacy, nor to track down the men you have had sex with. YOU are the one who MUST tel your contacts to see a doctor [if you know them]. That, too, is a moral obligation.

[Return to "Contents"]

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

DID YOU SEE the ad for "The Military Chess Set of the American Revolution", "a remarkable panorama of miniature sculptures" that sold for a mere $3,000? (NYTimes Magazine, 5/15/77) The king in the British set is George III, and of the US set, Geo Washington. But the queen? Not George III's wife nor Martha Washington — nor even Betsy Ross. But General Sir William Howe for the British and General Horatio Gates for the Yanks! My my. [Return to "Contents"]

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #


I shood hav laen in waet
And pounst cpon yu az yu past,
Krusht yu tu mi xest,
Maed mi mouthh and yaurz wun feeld uv tuxing, luving,
Cbliveecs uv stortoold utherz.

But I kood not no if yu wer a man hu kood luv a man,
And I kood not risk thc paen.
So yu or gaun.
And I'm cloen.
I shood hav laen in waet
And pounst cpon yu az yu past . . .


I should have lain in wait
And pounced upon you as you passed,
Crushed you to my chest,
Made my mouth and yours one field of touching, loving,
Oblivious of startled others.
But I could not know if you were a man who could love a man,
And I could not risk the pain.
So you are gone
And I'm alone.
I should have lain in wait
And pounced upon you as you passed . . .


 "The essential function of art is moral." — D.H. Lawrence

 "[S]ays the librarian of Congress . . . 'The true question to ask respecting a book, is, has it help'd any human soul?' This is a hint, statement, not only of the great literatus, his book, but of every great artist." — Walt Whitman

[Return to "Contents"]


 [The following are excerpts of a trilogy of articles sent to various publications, Copyright Donald Cameron Scot 1978]

"A recent article in the Gay Community News of Boston began, 'We should not rest until Anita Bryant is utterly destroyed.' [by DCS] . . . 'Nobody had ever said a bad thing about me in my life,' Miss Bryant says 'It was hard to understand the viciousness. All of a sudden, nobody would touch me.'" — THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 20, 1978 [For younger readers who don't know who Anita Bryant is, or was back then, suffice it to say that she was a singer and beauty-contest contestant who achieved some fame as spokeswoman for Florida orange juice and then, as a "born-again Christian", used her prominence to campaign against homosexuality. You don't hear much about her anymore, do you?]

Anita Bryant and I are the same age. We were born and reared in neighboring states, under similar cultural and social atmospheres and were baptized in the Baptist Church. In the summer of the year I was 14, I got caught with a neighborhood school mate. To cover himself, he talked to all who would listen, conveniently glossing over his participation and neglecting to add that we had been together for 2 years. By the time school resumed, I returned to face something for which I was not prepared: 'Nobody had ever said a bad thing about me in my life. It was hard to understand the viciousness. Al of a sudden, nobody would touch me.' At 14, that's a little harder to take than at 37, but it was something I would learn to live with — isolated and alone. Suspecting that you were gay in 1954 was not exactly greeted as the best of news, nor something you could go home and say — "Folks, I've got a problem and I need to talk to you." It was an exercise in sheer guts to get up and go to school where the risk of someone calling me "queer" was a daily reality, and there were often gangs of punks willing to beat the shit out of me because I was gay.

If suspecting you might be one of those 'awful creatures' at 14 in 1954 was not greeted with great celebration, the growing realization that it wasn't going away, that it wasn't going to go away, that it was, in fact, doing just the opposite, was even less a blessed revelation at 16 in 1956.

I played my last talent show in 1956 and after what proved my last recital, my mother wanted to know why I was so uptight. How in hell can you tell your mother, at 16, that the reason you ar so uptight is that you are living with the deadly fear that someday, somewhere, someone is going to stand up in an audience and yell "faggot" and there you would be, spotlighted for all to see as "human garbage". I won several medals in music that year, but I never went back.

For the next 15 years, Anita and I took totally different paths: she forever seeking the spotlight; I running for cover, hoping that if I didn't call attention to myself I might get thru another day just being left alone.

Then we graduated, Anita and I, she to go off to pursue the spotlight and I merely glad to escape the solitary torture that being in a school where everyone "knew" brought, looking forward to going to college — a different atmosphere, different people, a 'new' life. But it didn't work that way. The day after I checked into the dorm, one of my roommates went to the desk to demand that his room be changed: He wasn't about to share a room with me. I was completely bewildered, having assumed that the derision of the previous four years had been a result of the blabbermouth, and I did not understand why anyone should dislike me so intensely on sight.

In its own way, it helped. I was rattled enough that there were enough hints dropped to let me know why that roommate had his room changed: I had, unwittingly, become very effeminate. Once I caught on, I picked out a football player whose masculinity was not in question and, even tho I did not know what I had been doing wrong before, imitated his mannerisms as completely as possible. Not long after, my homosexuality was driven home to me with the force of striking lightning. But at least I wasn't nellie.

Until about age 16, I had assumed that my homosexuality was a phase that would eventually fade away, and I would be like every other boy I was growing up with. By 16, I developed a sinking suspicion that that might not be true, but I still held to the hope that I was just slow and at some vague point in the future my sexual drive would change direction, perhaps at 18. And I hoped that God was just taking his time in answering my prayers to change that sexual orientation. I couldn't see why he would have forsaken me, to let me be one of those 'hideous' things — a faggot, a queer, a fruit all my life.

At 19, I had still not found out why God hadn't done anything for me, but I did find out on a stifling summer Sunday that I was unquestionably gay, that it was not just a phase, and that it was not just boys horsing around. It was real. It was serious. And it was hellish. My head reeled and I didn't go back to my dorm for hours because I didn't know what I was going to do, or say, or how I was going to act, or even whether my thunderstruck revelation showed.

That was 1960. Anita Bryant's life was gliding along much as she had envisioned it. My entire concept of life, of my life, and my life plans was wrenched in directions I did not understand or recognize. If living with, but not rally believing, the suspicion was bad, you can double the effect with certain knowledge. All I knew was that I was going to have to rethink/remake my life. (The shrink said: "$20,000; 3 years; and no guarantee. I've had limited success with 3 gays out of 25. He strongly suggested that he would be of more value in helping me to live with it than in curing it.)

At 27, Anita Bryant signed a $1 million contract with the Florida Citrus Commission. A year later, I sat myself down for a long talk with myself. I had been rebelling against my homosexuality for nearly 20 years and nothing had changed. I was getting a little too old to keep running myself into the ground over something that I had not asked for, had not been able to change, that God had not changed, and that the shrinks could not change either. I had not come gently, but was, rather, wrenched into this good night. Nonetheless, it was time to stop fighting it and learn to live with it as best I could.

At 31, I wrote my first article for a gay paper and was quickly labelled a "political writer". I've written ever since.

I wasn't paying much attention when the battle for the Miami gay rights ordinance first began. Until March 11, 1977. When I arrived home from work, the young man I had been dating was on the phone to his parents, in utter agony, trying to explain to them the pains of growing up gay. Anita Bryant's name cropped up over and over again, and as I listened I was thrown with a shock back some 15 years to a time when it could have been me on that phone. Nothing had changed. I've had it Anita Bryant; I grew up in Anita Bryant's way; I know the effects, the terror, the anguish, the solitude and horror that come with Anita Bryant's way. And it was as much the reliving of that earlier anguish and terror in myself as for him that I knew I was going after Anita Bryant.

In an interview on February 22, 1978, she implied that she was not getting anywhere with a lot of government officials, stating that "this thing is bigger than we would ever have believed", implying that it is homosexuality in control. that is in perfect keeping with her conviction that gays have sprung, Athena-like, from some unknown sinister source as full-blown "homosexual militants", with no mother, no father, and no childhood. But with 20 million gays in the U.S., there are 20 million mothers of gays and 20 million fathers of gays — an absolute minimum of 60 million Americans who have had to deal with the issue of homosexuality at very close range. [Would that that were true. Actually, they haven't HAD to deal with any such thing, because we haven't forced them to confront our reality.]  Most of us have brothers and sisters, spiraling that figure upward to 80 million to 100 million — half the U.S. Add in aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews, and the number of Americans who have someone gay close to them reaches nearly the total population. Undoubtedly I have some relatives who would gleefully support Anita Bryant in her campaign to annihilate me, but there are others who would stomp her through the floor before they would let Anita Bryant near me.

Ironically, it has been Anita Bryant herself who took the lead in establishing opposition to her, for with her campaign of hatred, more and more gays have come out to fight her, and in coming out, have put relatives directly into the conflict, with them having to make the choice between Anita Bryant and a son or daughter, brother or sister. What Anita Bryant is running up against is nothing more than the friends and relatives of gays. . . .

Anita Bryant lied when she said I made the choice to be gay. No one ever sat me down and said: "well, son, have you given any thought to your future? Are you going to college or into the service? Have you decided whether you're going to be heterosexual or homosexual?" . . . .

And Anita Bryant lied when she said that gays recruit, children or otherwise. There are few of us who did not go through adolescence believing that we were the only one. Surely if there were any recruiting going on we would have known that we were not alone.

RECRUIT, HELL! Others will get here the same way I did with probably the same sense of relief that I felt in finding that I was not alone. I came to San Francisco 16 years ago with the firm conviction that my life was to be one thing by day, another by night. Pretending to be straight by day; gay by night, and never the two worlds would meet. I did not have that much in common with straights to spend much of my social time with them. Over and above that, it would never do to let a straight get too close for fear that they might discover my 'awful' secret. It was a world of fear and repression, where a trick remained just that. There was no camaraderie; there was no acknowledgment afterward that you even knew one another. someone might know about the guy you just spoke to and, by association, conclude that you too were gay. The guy you were with the night before felt the same way. Distance was the only safety. Straight or gay spelled an agonizing existence.

"But I'll admit, this was a struggle for me, not to get bitter." — Anita Bryant, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 2/20/78.

I know the feeling.

In retrospect, I have often been tempted to say "if it had not been for my homosexuality," then realize that it could just as easily be "because of my homosexuality." No one can say whether the character of personality is followed in spite of being gay, because of being gay, or a combination of the two.

Before that disastrous summer of 14, I experienced no problems at all, not even the worry of being gay. Even after 14, I realize that had I been able to get around the cloud that homosexuality cast over my life from then until a few years ago, life should have been a breeze. Or better, had there never been a cloud over my life because of my homosexuality.

And tho I would not pretend that it has been a primrose path, that it has not been harder on us than on others, I was never alone, miserable, and confined to a life of solitude but was, rather, in several different groups,social and fraternal, moving with relative ease in all.

I have been fired from a job only once — for being gay — in a convoluted version of the typical gay firing: my boss, supposedly straight (wife and kids) wouldn't keep his hands off me. From the time I told him to do so, my days were numbered.

It was in knowledge of the things we suffer that I took a hardline stance on Anita Bryant a year ago. Anita Bryant had everything this country could offer: fame, success, wealth, gay fans, and some say even beauty. But that was not enough. We were a convenient and easy target. She attacked with all the fury of evil that she could muster, never looking back to see the cost in human lives. It is one thing to have a belief. It is another to try to live by that belief. But it is quite another to try to assassinate others with that belief.

"Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogs, and the chief rooms at feast; which devour widows' houses, and for a show make long prayers; the same shall receive . . . damnation." (Luke 20:46-47) [Jesus speaking]

So if you have the gall, as did one young man, to walk up in a gay bar and with a conspiratorial wink tell me you had a "screwdriver" before you left home, I'll tell you the same thing I told him: You don't deserve to be in that bar. Even if you believe that you can escape the dragnet Anita Bryant wants set up, there will be others who will not escape. You are contributing, if not to your own death, at least to mine and those of the patrons of that bar whom you came in to be with and meet. You don't deserve their company: take your business elsewhere — a straight bar. — Donald Cameron Scot, San Francisco, CA [Return to "Contents"]

I am az poot auf az muevd bi DKS'z perscncl histcre and ante-Cneetc kruesaed. DKS and I or oenle 4 yeerz cport in aej (he, 37; I, 33), yet ouwer histcreez or vastle difrcnt, and I wunder if mi histcre and atituedz or unyuezhuecl. I am as put off as moved by DCS's personal history and anti-Anita crusade. DCS and I are only 4 years apart in age (he, 37; I, 33), yet our histories are vastly different, and I wonder if my history and attitudes are unusual.
I hav aulwaez noen that I wuz draun tu boiz (hwen a boi)/men (on groeing up), and at NO tiem sins the onset uv pyueberte did I ever dout that I wuz hoemoesekshuecl — and that I aulwaez wood be. I nu hwut I wontcd, and faur sevrcl yeerz (aejcz 13 thhru 17), I got it frum tiem tu time, frum a boi sevrcl yeerz oelder, til he muevd cwa. Then mi oenle problcm faur tha nekst thhre yeerz, until I maed mi hoem bi mieself in Nu Yaurk Site, wuz dueing withhout. I have always known that I was drawn to boys (when a boy)/men (on growing up), and at NO time since the onset of puberty did I ever doubt that I was homosexual — and that I always would be. I knew what I wanted, and for several years (ages 13 through 17), I got it from time to time, from a boy several years older, till he moved away. Then my only problem for the next three years, until I made my home bi myself in New York City, was doing without.
I haav aulwaez noen that I wuz NOT 'the oenle wun', eevcn if at tiemz I hav morvald that men kood be draun tu men. I morvcl tu this da that thc bieclojikool imperctivz fail withh us. But eex tiem I wunderd if a man kood reele wont a man, luv a man, need a man, I hav had oenle tu look withhin mieself tu get a reezounding Yes. I have always known that I was NOT 'the only one', even if at times I have marvelled that men could be drawn to men. I marvel to this day that the biological imperatives fail with us. But each time I wondered if a man could really want a man, love a man, need a man, I have had only to look within myself to get a resounding Yes.
Bi aej 14 aur so I had found tha WERD hoemoesekshuecl, and I lookt intu thc subjekt in liebrereez — at leest az mux az I daird. Naxrcle I wuz loethh tu let utherz no hwut I nu, but maenle out uv self-prctekshcn, not gilt aur shaem. I red thc "kaes histcre" books uv thc 50z, hwix wer obveecsle ment tu titilaet hoemoesekshueclz maur than shed ene reel liet on tha subjekt faur heteroesek- shueclz. And I kwikle beekaem tieyerd and anggerd withh thc transparcnt kuverup in theez books: thc derogctaure medikal laeboolz and riexcs morcliezing cgenst hoemoesekshuelite. Sumhwair claung tha lien, I sau a TV sho cbout thc Matcsheen Scsiecte in Nu Yaurk, and I staurd thc naem cwa in memcre faur fyuexer yues. By age 14 or so I had found the WORD homosexual, and I looked into the subject in libraries — at least as much as I dared. Naturally I was loath to let others know what I knew, but mainly out of self-protection, not guilt or shame. I read the "case history" books of the 50s, which were obviously meant to titillate homosexuals more than shed any real light on the subject for heterosexuals. And I quickly became tired and angered with the transparent coverup in these books: the derogatory medical labels and righteous moralizing against homosexuality. Somewhere along the line, I saw a TV show about the Mattachine Society in New York, and I stored the name away in memory for future use.
A popyooler paeperbak kaem out kauld THC SIKSTHH MAN, hwix pointcd up Kinzee's fiending that foole a siksthh uv aul Y.S. men or preedomincntle hoemoesekshuecl. A feemail frend had a kope and gaev it tu me after she had red it. ![Oenle yeerz laeter did I noetis that hwen she roet mi naem insied it, she prefcst it withh hwut looks scspishcsle liek "Mrs"! It seemsz that hwut I perseevd az a meer frendship, she wontcd tu be maur. Yeerz laeter, her yungger bruther — hu ternd out tu be at leest biesekshuecle kcnfyuezd — toeld me that after she reeternd frum a laung driev withh me wun niet, her muther askt, "Did he tri tu kis yu?", and hwen she sed No, her mum eksklaemd "He MUST be kweer!" Riet she wuz. And I'm glad uv it.] A popular paperback came out called THE SIXTH MAN, which pointed up Kinsey's finding that fully a sixth of all U.S. men are predominantly homosexual. A female friend had a copy and gave it to me after she had read it. ![Only years later did I notice that when she wrote my name inside it, she prefaced it with what looks suspiciously like "Mrs"! It seems that what I perceived as a mere friendship, she wanted to be more. Years later, her younger brother — who turned out to be at least bisexually confused — told me that after she returned from a long drive with me one night, her mother asked, "Did he try to kiss you?", and when she said No, her mum exclaimed "He MUST be queer!" Right she was. And I'm glad of it.]
In ene kaes, mi reeding and perscncl ekspeereecnscz pruevd tu me that thair wer LOTS uv hoemoesekshueclz, and I had oenle tu fiend mien. THC SIKSTHH MAN kcntaend pascjcz on kruezing, so I nu hwut tu look faur hwen I enkounterd it. And hwen I herd cbout Matcsheen, I nu that that wuz sumthhing I wontcd tu get involvd in. I aulwaez nu that I wuz riet tu be hoemoesekshuecl, and evreebude wuz raung hu sed that hoemoesekshuealite wuz raung: beekauz I woodn't wont it if it wer raung. So thc fakt that I wuz hoemoesekshuecl ment that hoemoesekshuealite HAD TU BE aulriet. Naxrcle I did feel sum gilts and shaem, but I understood them tu be produkts uv beeing scroundcd and konsckwentle boethh kcndishcnd and intimidaetcd bi nonhoemoesekshueclz. In any case, my reading and personal experiences proved to me that there were LOTS of homosexuals, and I had only to find mine. THE SIXTH MAN contained passages on cruising, so I knew what to look for when I encountered it. And when I heard about Mattachine, I knew that that was something I wanted to get involved in. I always knew that I was right to be homosexual, and everybody was wrong who said that homosexuality was wrong: because I wouldn't want it if it were wrong. So the fact that I was homosexual meant that homosexuality HAD TO BE alright. Naturally I did feel some guilts and shame, but I understood them to be products of being surrounded and consequently both conditioned and intimidated bi nonhomosexuals.
At 19 I muevd tu Nu Yaurk, hwair I nu I kood fiend hoemoesekshueclz in cbundcns — cvailcbool cbundcns. Bi faurtueitcs xans, I muevd tu withhin haf a blok uv a kruezing aireec on Riversied Driev. But after 3 yeerz uv having reeprest mi sekshuecl dczieyerz, it took me 6 munthhs aur maur tu 'kum out'. (Wun niet duering this peereecd, a prievct kop on tha Driev kauld me a "fag" or "fagct" beekauz I wuz loitering on thc Driev at niet. [That helpt me reecliez that thc Driev wuz a kruezing aireec.] I wuz fyuereecs withh him, and staird him out. I nu hwut I wuz and I wuzn't goeing tu poot up withh peepool kauling me naemz.) It took an insistcnt grad stuedcnt tu get past mi hcbixuecl deefenscz — bi tikcling, the oenle wae he kood get tu tux me. Wuns we got stortcd, I wuz rede tu taek mi proper plaes, and eevcn tho he sed I didn't hav tu reesiprckaet, I boethh felt I DID hav tu — and wontcd tu. Frum then on, thhingz wer prite eeze. At 19 I moved to New York, where I knew I could find homosexuals in abundance —available abundance. By fortuitous chance, I moved to within half a block of a cruising area on Riverside Drive. But after 3 years of having repressed my sexual desires, it took me 6 months or more to 'come out'. (One night during this period, a private cop on the Drive called me a "fag" or "faggot" because I was loitering on the Drive at night. [That helped me realize that the Drive was a cruising area.] I was furious with him, and stared him out. I knew what I was and I wasn't going to put up with people calling me names.) It took an insistent grad student to get past my habitual defenses — by tickling, the only way he could get to touch me. Once we got started, I was ready to take my proper place, and even tho he said I didn't have to reciprocate, I both felt I DID have to — and wanted to. From then on, things were pretty easy.
I had thc graet good faurxcn tu meet a gruep uv intelijcnt, frendle men hu TAUKT tu eex uther. I lernd a lot frum hwut tha sed, thhingz that wood hav taekcn me yeerz tu lern frum mi oen ekspeereecns cloen. I found soeshcl akseptcns — reel akseptcns bi reel peerz, peepool uv mi oen intclexuecl levool and sekshuecl aureeyentaeshcn, withh huem I kood reelaks and tauk cbout ENEETHHING that kcnsernd me. Thair frendleencs, oepcncs, and — yes, damit, HOELSCMncs — helpt maek me kumfertcbool withh mi oen sekshuealite, and withh thairz. I had the great good fortune to meet a group of intelligent, friendly men who TALKED to each other. I learned a lot from what they said, things that would have taken me years to learn from my own experience alone. I found social acceptance — real acceptance by real peers, people of my own intellectual level and sexual orientation, with whom I could relax and talk about ANYTHING that concerned me. Their friendliness, openness, and — yes, dammit, WHOLESOMEness — helped make me comfortable with my own sexuality, and with theirs.
At 20 I wuz pasing out literaxer faur sivilycn reevyu uv NY'z pclees withh a gruep frum thc Matcsheen Scsiecte (I did fiend them), and wuz cnoid that Matcsheen didn't dair print its naem on its litercxer, faur feer that endaursmcnt bi a hoemoesekshuecl gruep wood be "thc kis uv dethh". At 23 I wuz crestcd on Kristcfer Street faur reefyuezing a pclees aurder tu "braek it up and muev on", hwen I wuz tauking witth sum ga frendz. I spent thc niet in jail but WUN CKWITCL on Konstitueshcncl groundz, that thair IZ a riet uv peescbool csemble. I had stood up cgenst cbyues and had wun, bi thc sistcm. At 20 I was passing out literature for civilian review of NY's police with a group from the Mattachine Society (I did find them), and was annoyed that Mattachine didn't dare print its name on its literature, for fear that endorsement by a homosexual group would be "the kiss of death". At 23 I was arrested on Christopher Street for refusing a police order to "break it up and move on", when I was talking with some gay friends. I spent the night in jail but WON ACQUITTAL on Constitutional grounds, that there IS a right of peaceable assembly. I had stood up against abuse and had won, by the system.
Meenhwiecl, in laet 1965 (aej 21), a leter I roet tu WUN Magczeen [an erle ga publikaeshcn] saeing uv a pees uv fikshan "Iz it tu mux tu ask faur a hape ending?" wuz publisht oever mi inishclz. Then I roet a laung leter in anser tu W. Daur Leg'z leter uv reeplie, and WUN'z Spring 1966 ishu printcd it under tha suedanim "Kreg Le" — the OENLE tiem I ever yuezd a suedcnim in thc Muevmcnt. In that leter/ortikool I sugjestcd that the cproex then beeing taekcn — suet-and-ti, "prcfeshcncl" faurbaircns — wuz inadckwit, and that perhaps thc "hoemcfiecl" muevmcnt needcd thc saem thhing thc blak sivcl riets muevmcnt needcd: tu be taekcn oever bi kolcj kidz. Laeter that yeer, Bob Mortin foundcd thc Stuedant Hoemcfiecl Leeg at Kclumbeec Yueniversite, sins he cparcntle kaem tu thc saem kcnkluezhan on hiz oen. I had not yet stortcd kolcj, sins mi ferst prieyorite had bin tu get out on mi oen and cwae frum skuel. Meanwhile, in late 1965 (age 21), a letter I wrote to ONE Magazine [an early gay publication] saying of a piece of fiction "Is it too much to ask for a happy ending?" was published over my initials. Then I wrote a long letter in answer to W. Dorr Legg's letter of reply, and ONE's Spring 1966 issue printed it under the pseudonym "Craig Lee" — the ONLY time I ever used a pseudonym in the Movement. In that letter/article I suggested that the approach then being taken — suit-and-tie, "professional" forbearance — was inadequate, and that perhaps the "homophile" movement needed the same thing the black civil rights movement needed: to be taken over by college kids. Later that year, Bob Martin founded the Student Homophile League at Columbia University, since he apparently came to the same conclusion on his own. I had not yet started college, since my first priority had been to get out on my own and away from school.
At 24 I foundcd thc thherd NY Site ga kolcj gruep, Hoemoesekshueclz Intransigjcnt!, and enkounterd mi ferst difikulte: frum fagcts and dieks. Thc kolcj gaev me no flak, and hoemoesekshuecl men in strcteejik kolcj poests wer moest helpfool. But Bob Mortin's SHL tried tu get thc hoel Muevmcnt tu boikot HI! beekauz we daird tu reestrikt membership tu men unles a ko-eekwcl and seme-sepcrct wimcn'z gruep wer establisht (nun ever wuz; lezbeecnz or best aurgcniezd, it seemz, bi men). Thc boikot faild. At 24 I founded the third NY City gay college group, Homosexuals Intransigent!, and encountered my first difficulty: from faggots and dykes. The college gave me no flak, and homosexual men in strategic college posts were most helpful. But Bob Martin's SHL tried to get the whole Movement to boycott HI! because we dared to restrict membership to men unless a co-equal and semi-separate women's group were established (none ever was; lesbians are best organized, it seems, by men). The boycott failed.
Duering thc sumer uv that yeer, 1969, I wuz in Kalifaurnyc, cmung uther thhingz trieing tu aurgcniez xapterz uv HI! at thc tu kolcjcz I wuz ctending faur sumer seshcnz. Hwiel I wuz thair, STOENWAUL hapcnd. And I herd cbout it in Kalifaurnyc. Thc riect herd round thc werld. During the summer of that year, I was in California, among other things trying to organize chapters of HI! at the two colleges I was attending for summer sessions. While I was there, STONEWALL happened. And I heard about it in California. The riot heard round the world.
Thhru aul theez yeerz mi maen problcmz hav bin withh hoemoesekshueclz, not hets. Hoemoesekshueclz hav freekwcntle discpointcd me bi not beeing kcraejcs aur kiend, fre aur fair, luesid aur luving. So I must ask Mr. Skot, Hwi DIDN'T yu maek yaur 12-yeer-oeld frend kcnfes hiz aktiv port in the cfair and hiz involvmcnt withh yu faur 2 yeerz? Hwi du yu sa, eevcn nou, at 37, "I pikt out a footbaul plaeyer huez maskyoolinite wuz not in kwesxcn", hwen hwut yu meen iz "huez heteroesekshuealite wuz not in kwesxcn"? Hwi did yu fiend it so hord — hwi did yu fiend it at aul hord — tu aksept that yu wer hoemoesekshuecl? I just doen't understand. Through all these years my main problems have been with homosexuals, not hets. Homosexuals have frequently disappointed me by not being courageous or kind, free or fair, lucid or loving. So I must ask Mr. Scot, Why DIDN'T you make your 12-year-old friend confess his active part in the affair and his involvement with you for two years? Why do you say, even now, at 37, "I picked out a football player whose masculinity was not in question", when what you mean is "whose heterosexuality was not in question"? Why did you find it so hard — why did you find it at all hard — to accept that you were homosexual? I just don't understand.
Hwi on erthh wood yu pra tu God tu be straet? Hwut man in hiz riet miend wood wont tu be straet if he kood be hoemoesekshuecl? Hou in thc werld kood yu hav taekcn 20 yeerz tu cjust tu beeing yaurself? And wer yu ekspeereeyenshcle kwolified tu riet ortikoolz faur the instrukshcn uv hoemoesekshueclz a skant faur yeerz after yu fienale, fiencle, fiencle — gaging and rexing aul thc wa — deesiedcd "tu stop fieting it and lern tu liv withh it az best [yu] kood"? I sugjest that this iz wun uv thc graetcst problcmz thc "ga pres" faescz: thc peepool hu riet reele or not wel-eenuf ajustcd tu thair oen sekshuealite tu be uv mux help tu eneewun els. (Wox it! I hav bin aksepting uv MI hoemoesekshuealite mi entieyer lief.) Thc bliend or uv limitd yuetilite in leeding thc bliend. Why on earth would you pray to God to be straight? What man in his right mind would want to be straight if he could be homosexual? How in the world could you have taken 20 years to adjust to being yourself? And were you experientially qualified to right articles for the instruction of homosexuals a scant four years after you finally, finally, finally — gagging and wretching all the way — decided "to stop fighting it and learn to live with it as best [you] could"? I suggest that this is one of the greatest problems the "gay press" faces: the people who write really are not well-enough adjusted to their own sexuality to be of much help to anyone else. (Watch it! I have been accepting of MY homosexuality my entire life.) The blind are of limited utility in leading the blind.
And hwen Mr. Skot sez "Cneetc Briecnt lied hwen she sed I maed thc xois tu be ga", I sugjest he reecliez that eex uv us DUZ make that xois evre da we liv. It IZ posibool tu "kcnvert", if tha dczieyer iz straung eenuf and thc paenz uv beeing hoemoesekshuecl graev eenuf. We du not advans bi disklaeming reesponsibilite faur ouwer akts. We or hoemoesekshuecl bi xois, and we had damd wel beter aksept thc fakt that that xois impoezcz reesponsibiliteez — uv vareecs kiendz — cpon us. And when Mr. Scot says "Anita Bryant lied when she said I made the choice to be gay", I suggest he realize that each of us DOES make that choice every day we live. It IS possible to "convert", if the desire is strong enough and the pains of being homosexual grave enough. We do not advance by disclaiming responsibility for our acts. We are homosexual by choice, and we had damned well better accept the fact that that choice imposes responsibilities — of various kinds — upon us.
So I am anggerd at sum uv thc raej oever Cneetc Briecnt. Let's be oncst: Cneeta Briecnt iz sinseer. She truele beeleevz that hoemoesekshuealite iz raung. She iz mistaekcn. But she iz sinseer. She sertcnle iz not moetivaetcd bi thc dczieyer tu du "eevool" — eevcn tho she duz end up so dueing. Thc pruef uv her rietncs aur raungncs wil be found in US, and doen't thhingk yu kan kon thc publik. If we du not beehaev deescntle, we wil not be reespektcd. If we du not luv, but oenle lust, we wil not be respektcd. If we du not sho kercj and pried, we wil not be reespektcd. Bi ouwerselvz, maur impaurtcntle than bi straets. If we truele beeleevd in ourwerselvz, we wood csert ouwerselvz. We wood brook no interfeercns, we wood toleraet no ekskyuescz faur ouwer oen failyerz and indeescnseez tu wun cnuther. We wood not maek ekskyuescz faur ouwerselvz naur aksept ene frum utherz, az tu hwi we "kan't" "risk" "ekspoezher". So I am angered at some of the rage over Anita Bryant. Let's be honest: Anita Bryant is sincere. She truly believes that homosexuality is wrong. She is mistaken. But she is sincere. She certainly is not motivated by the desire to do "evil" — even tho she does end us so doing. The proof of her rightness or wrongness will be found in US, and don't think you can con the public. If we do not behave decently, we will not be respected. If we do not love, but only lust, we will not be respected. If we do not show courage and pride, we will not be respected. By ourselves, more importantly than by straights. If we truly believed in ourselves, we would assert ourselves. We would brook no interference, we would tolerate no excuses for our own failures and indecencies to one another. We would not make excuses for ourselves nor accept any from others, as to why we "can't" "risk" "exposure".
No wun kan be blaemd faur kouwerdis but thc kouwerd, faur no wun, no gruep, no scsiecte kan intimidaet thc braev man'z kercj cwa. No wun kan be blaemd faur kcnfyuezhcn but thc kcnfyezd. And no wun kan kcnfyuez thc man hu noez himself, naur kan eneewun UNkcnfyuez cnuther. That iz a task oenle thc kcnfyuezd man himself kan ckomplish. No wun kan be blaemd faur perversite but thc pervert. And no man dcsendz tu perverzhcn hu reespekts himself. And so we must bair thc reesponsibilitie faur thc sad staet uv "ga" scsiecte and its woloeing in perpexuecl self-haetrcd and deejenercse. Aul that xaenjcz iz thc faurm uv self-dcstruktivncs: drag beekumz kastraeshan; efemincse yeeldz tu saedo-masckizm. Or we ched aur beehiend? No one can be blamed for cowardice but the coward, for no one, no group, no society can intimidate the brave man's courage away. No one can be blamed for confusion but the confused. And no one can confuse the man who knows himself, nor can anyone UNconfuse another. That is a task only the confused man himself can accomplish. No one can be blamed for perversity but the pervert. And no man descends to perversion who respects himself. And so we must bare the responsibility for the sad state of "gay" society and its wallowing in perpetual self-hatred and degeneracy. All that changes is the form of self-destructiveness: drag becomes castration; effeminacy yields to sado-masochism. Are we ahead or behind?
No wun kan "giv" yu kercj, faur kercj iz kercj oenle hwen it aul kumz doun tu yu, cloen. Thc rest iz brcvodo. No wun kan giv yu integrite. Yu must fiend it withhin yaurself, and pa thc pries it kareez. That pries iz aufcn iesclaeshcn and loenleencs, thc feeling that yu or the oenle wun in thc werld liek yu. But yu ma hav gaun thhru sumthhing liek that beefaur. In truethh, mene uv us hav felt liek that. But we found we wer not the oenle wun. We miet never hav found the utherz had we not bin wiling tu BE them ourself. So perhaps thair or kcraejcs hoemoesekshuecl men, hu no tu reebel not cgenst straets, hu cfekt them litcl, but cgenst thc fauls valyuez uv "gaez". Perhaps jus stiking bi wun'z prinsipoolz and dairing tu vent wun's frustraeshcnz wil spork reevoelt in thoez utherz hu aulso feel cprest not bi straet scsiecte but bi fag SUBscsiecte. I hoep so. And I hoep that's not a fuelish hoep. No one can "give" you courage, for courage is courage only when it all comes down to you, alone. The rest is bravado. No one can give you integrity. You must find it within yourself, and pay the price it carries. That pries is often isolation and loneliness, the feeling that you are the only one in the world like you. But you may have gone through something like that before. In truth, many of us have felt like that. But we found we were not the only one. We might never have found the others had we not been willing to BE them ourself. So perhaps there are courageous homosexual men, who know to rebel not against straights, who affect them little, but against the false values of "gays". Perhaps just sticking by one's principles and daring to vent one's frustrations will spark revolt in those others who also feel oppressed not by straight society but by fag SUBsociety. I hope so. And I hope that's not a foolish hope.
Riet nou, onercbool straets or dueing moest uv thc werk faur us. We hav sckseedcd in maeking "ga riets" a libercl ishu that peepool or wiling tu speek out on. But sins it iz we hu must ultimctle bair thc konsckwenscz uv deefeet, it iz we hu must csuem thc bulk uv thc berdcn uv advansing ouwerselvz. Beesiedz, it iz best tu leed wunself if wun wonts tu be shuer tu end up hwair he wonts tu be. Right now, honorable straights are doing most of the work for us. We have succeeded in making "gay rights" a liberal issue that people are willing to speak out on. But since it is we who must ultimately bear the consequences of defeat, it is we who must assume the bulk of the burden of advancing ourselves. Besides, it is best to lead oneself if one wants to be sure to end up where he wants to be.
In thc lorjcst sens, it iz thc sied-eefekts uv the ante-Cneetc fiet hwix wil mater moest. If oenle this waur wil maek us faes thc fakt that we or not reespektcd beekauz we or not reespektcbool, then perhaps thc fiet iz werthh fieting. But I thhingk we hav thc kort beefaur thc haurs. Thc haurs iz Deescnse. Thc kort iz Reespekt, leegcl and uther. In the largest sense, it is the side-effects of the anti-Anita fight which will matter most. If only this war will make us face the fact that we are not respected because we are not respectable, then perhaps the fight is worth fighting. But I think we have the art before the horse. The horse is Decency. The cart is Respect, legal and other.
If we or deescnt tu ouwerselvz and eex uther; if we or self-reespektfool and luving, self-konfidant and self-csertiv; if we or truele pleezd tu be hu and hwut we or, it wil folo az thc da tha niet that utherz wil kum tu hav thc saem hi cpinycn uv us. Then deescnt treetmant and fair lauz WIL JUST HAPCN. Yu kan't faurs reespekt, oenle ern it. We doen't yet dczerv reespekt. We doen't kair mux faur ouwerselvz aur eex uther. And no lejislaeshcn wil xaenj that. We KAN xaenj. But that task haz nuthhing tu du withh lauz. Indeed, perhaps thc strugool faur leegcl reefaurm distrakts us frum this for maur impaurtcnt fiet: thc fiet tu be good, az hoemoesekshueclz. Tu be good hoemoesekshueclz. If we are decent to ourselves and each other; if we are self-respectful and loving, self-confident and self-assertive; if we are truly pleased to be who and what we are, it will follow as the day the night that others will come to have the same high opinion of us. Then decent treatment and fair laws WILL JUST HAPPEN. You can't force respect, only earn it. We don't yet deserve respect. We don't care much for ourselves or each other. And no legislation will change that. We CAN change. But that task has nothing to do with laws. Indeed, perhaps the struggle for legal reform distracts us from this far more important fight: the fight to be good, as homosexuals. To be good homosexuals.

[This discussion continues , with a new letter from Donald Cameron Scot and an editorial reply, in the July 1978 newsletter.] Return to "Contents"]



Poets to come! orators, singers, musicians to come!
Not to-day is to justify me and answer what I am for,
But you, a new brood, native, athletic, continental, greater than before known,
Arouse! for you must justify me.

I myself but write one or two indicative words for the future,
I but advance a moment only to wheel and hurry back in the darkness.

I am a man who, sauntering along without fully stopping turns a casual look upon you and then averts his face,
Leaving it to you to prove and define it,
Expecting the main things from you.

— Walt Whitman, 1860 [Return to "Contents"]


'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being;
And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed
Not by our feeling, but by others' seeing;
For why should others' false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own:
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel;
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;

Unless this general evil they maintain,
All men are bad and in their badness reign. 


. . . My heart doth plead that thou in him dost lie,
A closet never pierced with crystal eyes, . . .


. . . Such is my love, to thee I so belong,
That for thy right myself will bear all wrong.


Your love and pity doth the impression fill
Which vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow;
For what care I who calls me well or ill,
so you o'er-green my bad, my good allow?
You are my all the world, and I must strive
To know my shames and praises from your tongue;
None else to me, nor I to none alive,
That my steeled sense or changes right or wrong.
In so profound abyss I throw all care
Of others' voices, that my adder's sense
To critic and to flatterer stoppèd are.
Mark how with my neglect I do dispense:

You are so strongly in my purpose bred
That all the world besides methinks are dead.

— William Shakespeare [all of these are poems all scholars agree were to a man] [A film is now, in 1999, playing in theaters that purports to depict Shakespeare in Love. In the film, which has received high praise from heterosexual critics, Shakespeare is in love with a woman. Oh?]

  o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

H2IQ is a publication of Homosexuals of High IQ, an organization of men who rank in the top 2% of the general population on intelligence tests. H2IQ is published approximately monthly at 446 West 46th Street, 1R, New York, NY 10036. All phonetically spelled sections © L. Craig Schoonmaker 1978. [Return to "Contents"]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[The following membership and subscription information is not current (2001) but is presented as a historical artifact. H2IQ is not presently active.]

SUBSCRIPTIONS Nonmembers may subscribe at the same rate as members: $8.00/year but may not regularly attend meetings of the organization. Qualifying scores on widely used tests: SAT (Verbal and Math combined) 1300; GRE (Verbal and Math combined), 1250; California Test of Mental Maturity, IQ 132; Stanford Binet, Form L or M, IQ 133; Stanford Binet, Form L-M, IQ 132. Applicants for membership must provide proof of eligibility.

[   ]  Please enroll me as a Subscriber to H2IQ. I enclose US$8.00.

[   ]  Please enroll me as a Member of Homosexuals of High IQ. I enclose US$8.00 and proof of eligibility.

Name: __________________________ Address: __________________________
           DATE:                                          Signature:

(This is the end of this section.) [Go to top of this page.] [Go to Mr. Gay Pride home page.]