Volume 92, Issue 39

Thursday, November 12, 1998

not too late to reconsider football too


OPINIONS
 

Clarifying hir points

Re: Ignorant Nobility, Nov. 3

To the Editor:

I would like to make some observations with regards to statements made by N.D. Muscutt in hir letter of Nov. 3. First, I would like to ask exactly what variety of English shi is using (as a note, I am referring to M. Muscutt as a gender-neutral entity because shi opted not to provide The Gazette editors with hir full name – anyone who is offended by my choice of words hereby has my apologies). Second, I would like to make a comment regarding a critical piece of misinformation lurking within hir information regarding homosexuality.

First, some quick definitions: the word "nobility" has only two definitions that do not pertain to birth or breeding – greatness or magnanimity. Magnanimity is defined as being "free from mean or petty feelings and acts." Mr. O'Neil's letter to The Gazette was not magnanimous – it was one man whining that his student fees were being misspent.

Second, M. Muscutt infers "the homosexual lifestyle" and monogamy are mutually exclusive, which is introduced by a grievous misreading of Mr. O'Neil's originating letter. With regard to the latter, despite what M. Muscutt is claiming, Mr. O'Neil's letter IS only saying that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.

As for the former, it is at this point that I would like to make an observation that has been made before – and will unfortunately need to be made again. There is no "homosexual lifestyle," just as there is no "Christian lifestyle," "heterosexual lifestyle" or "Canadian lifestyle."

I am in the position to know two homosexual gentlemen who just happen to be engaged in a happy, monogamous relationship with each other. On the other hand, I am also acquainted with heterosexuals who are quite happy bed-hopping. On the third hand, I am a heterosexual male myself and I have absolutely no interest in copulating with anyone. Any claims that promiscuity or monogamy are the exclusive realms (or even the usual haunts) of homosexuals or heterosexuals are laughable at best.

Finally, I would like to make one more observation. Despite M. Muscutt's breast-beating about the damage to Mr. O'Neil's reputation or the "storm" that he faces, we must keep in mind that Mr. O'Neil is a fourth-year student and quite capable of taking care of himself. Any storm that he faces as a result of the comments is of his own creation.

Jason Aylen
English I



To Contact The Opinions Department: gazette.opinions@julian.uwo.ca

Copyright The Gazette 1998