Letters to the editor

Gay sex can express love, be dignified

Regarding 'Conservatives favor dignity in campus sexuality debate' (Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2003):

In his column, Michael Fragoso makes two assumptions. The first is that acts done purely for pleasure are inherently undignified. I am of the view that taking in a sunrise on a Malibu beach and other purely pleasurable acts do not take away from a person's dignity at all, but understand that reasonable people can have different definitions of "dignity."

His second assumption, however, I must take issue with. He assumes that there can only be two reasons for sexual acts: procreation and pleasure. Therefore, if one is not having sex for procreative reasons, one is making one's body "a simple object of pleasure." He neglects a third and vitally important aspect of many sex acts: the deep emotional bond it cements and is a manifestation of.

Either he is of the view that homosexuals are inherently incapable of developing these strong emotional bonds (dare we call it love?) with their partners, or, since he is not a bigot, must concede that at least some homosexual acts, if done as an expression of love, do not undermine the dignity of the persons engaged in them, even on his own definition of dignity. Xiuhui Lim '05

No good arguments, so conservatives cry foul

Regarding 'Conservatives favor dignity in campus sexuality debate' (Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2003):

Michael Fragoso makes a number of troubling points, his most egregious being the argument that progressives use the rhetoric of political correctness to dodge social conservatives' reasoned arguments against homosexuality. This claim, a conservative mantra since they first began to lose the culture war, is a flimsy bit of rhetorical jujitsu and must be recognized as such.

At Princeton, conservatives attack "liberal orthodoxy" much more than they attack actual progressive views. Why would they do this if they have, as Fragoso promises, truly compelling arguments? Why not simply lay the claims out and let liberals see the light? I suspect it is because deep down conservatives realize the frailty of their own positions. They know arguments like — to quote Fragoso — "Homosexual acts undermine the dignity of the person, for they make the body a simple object of pleasure" convince few, so instead attack anyone who disagrees with them as liberal thought police. Because their intellectual arguments are weak, it is conservatives — not liberals — who "muddy the waters" with cries of foul play. Tom Hale '04

Homosexuality is not analogous to alcoholism

Regarding 'Conservatives favor dignity in campus sexuality debate' (Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2003):

Michael Fragoso's fear that he will be viewed as a neo-Nazi is probably not justified. He should be more afraid that he will be correctly seen as a superficial and lazy thinker who likes to see other people fight. For example, he writes, "Homosexual acts undermine the dignity of the person, for they make the body a simple object of pleasure." Read the same sentence, substituting the word, "heterosexual" for "homosexual." My highly heterosexual wife would take affront, and she should. How Fragoso can then jump from discussing homosexuality to alcoholism is only evident if homosexuality is viewed analogously, as a disease. It is not. William Haning, M.D. '71