Letters to the Editor

Accepting homosexuality as a lifestyle, not a psychological disorder

After reading Matt O'Brien's column "Questioning the unquestionable: Homosexuality and Princeton's gay movement," I felt an overwhelming need to shower.

At the risk of being accused of engaging in the type of "name-calling" O'Brien rightly worries his column will provoke, I must say that his pseudo-intellectual defense of "powerful arguments" classifying homosexuality as a "psychological disorder" leading to an "immoral" and "destructive" lifestyle brought to my mind Alfred Rosenberg's pseudo-scientific book "The Myth of the Twentieth Century," in which he attempts to provide National Socialism's anti-Semitism with a historic and philosophic theoretical basis. I'm not saying or suggesting O'Brien is nearly as bigoted toward homosexuals as Rosenberg and his fellow Nazis fanatically were toward Jews and others. I'm saying his column attempts to dress up and disguise an obvious personal abhorrence of homosexuality with religious, psychological and philosophical "arguments" just as Rosenberg similarly did in trying to demonstrate the inferiority of the non-Ayran races.

In any case, I am genuinely saddened that among what are presumably our best and brightest university students today there is at least one, whose characterization of homosexuality as an avoidable psychological condition afflicting those without good morals, is no different than what one hears from the most ignorant and hate-filled Bible-thumpers in the backwoods of America. I'm all for an "honest, fair and sustained conversation" about the nature of homosexuality and homophobia. But a discussion of one's own or someone else's moral views on this subject would seem more appropriate in a church or at home, not at a university.

Unless the editors of The Daily Princetonian share Mr. O'Brien's apparent belief that homosexuals are not born with a sexual preference for their own sex, but become homosexuals as a result of some sort of psychological, moral and/or spiritual disorder, I frankly question the propriety of publishing what arguably constitutes hate speech. While I assume the decision to publish his column was based on his call for a "conversation with all sides represented," would the same consideration be given to advocates of hate or discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity or gender in the name of having your readers hear "all sides" of such issues? I doubt it. Or at least I hope the 'Prince' would not sink so low. So why is it still acceptable to allow homosexuals to be subjected to such moralizing nonsense in the 'Prince?'

By the way, I'm not a homosexual (or bisexual). I'm a hopeless hetero. In fact, to be perfectly honest, and with all due respect for my gay friends, I must confess that the thought of the act of homosexuality is somewhat repulsive to me. But I am not such a Neanderthal as to think that homosexuals are inherently immoral or that they were not born with a same sex preference. Therefore, I believe they are entitled to the same respect the rest of the human race deserves, at least until they do, say or write something causing me to have disrespect for them. James Nichols Santa Barbara, CA

Homosexuality is normal and not destructive to families

In his column on April 19, Matt O'Brien claims that, "the orthodox view on campus holds that homosexuality is natural and that acting on homosexual inclinations is morally permissible." I cannot claim to speak for the Princeton campus, much less the American public, but I would like to say why this view is in fact my view.

Simply put, I have many gay friends (men and women) and they are all by and large perfectly normal in the way that I like my friends to be normal, and perfectly weird in the way that I like my friends to be weird — that is, eccentric but not pathological.

No one will ever convince me that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, because I have met too many gay people who are psychologically perfectly healthy. And no one will ever convince me that homosexuality is "destructive of individuals and families," as Mr. O'Brien says it is, because I have met too many gay people who are wonderful, happy individuals and devoted to their families.

How many gay people does Mr. O'Brien know well? It is at this point that I will resist calling him names. Ethan Schoolman GS Politics Department

TWC name change should not change mission statement

I am writing in response to the recent name change for the "Third World Center." Much maligned and mocked, as the place it represents, the TWC has been a unique component of an otherwise culturally monolithic campus. The aim of the Center was to serve as the locus of multi-cultural meeting, so that students from all backgrounds, particularly those coming from developing countries, could converge and express their cultural interests freely. For this reason, the name stood for the importance of remembering that even in elite schools like Princeton, there are many who come from places where First World domination has been a powerful force.

Let us hope that with the changing of the name this aim is not forgotten. It would be a pity to see such a unique environment appropriated by any one domestic U.S. group while pushing aside the numerous international and Latino students who also wish to express their cultural interests, such as being able to watch soccer rather than basketball sometimes. We must realize that U.S. demographics are changing, and we no longer live in a bi-chromatic milieu. Diego von Vacano, GS Politics Department