Wood's response to my letter is off the mark on several points:
Item: Wood thinks that a supreme court decision upholding state
sodomy laws is merely an example of government "posed official written
biases against homosexuals". It is much more than this! Sociologists had
better find out about institutionalized discrimination or they will
misunderstand the most crucial aspects of the matter at hand.
Item: Wood hopes that the "laws will change to suit the attitude of
the country soon". One should beware of what one hopes for! The "attitude"
of the "country" is not necessarily what Wood thinks it is. Not only do
several states of the United States make "sodomy" a crime, they also define
"sodomy" so that it refers to homosexual sex exclusively. Readers
interested in current examples of the "attitude" of parts of the country
should study President Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for the
military to see its basic homophobic implications. In addition they should
read articles that appeared on the same day in the New York Times (February
28, 1996) to find out aspects of the "attitude" in different parts of the
country:
James Brooke, "To Be Young, Gay and Going to High School in Utah,"
NEW YORK TIMES February 28, 1996, pp. A1,B8.
Gustav Niebuhr, "Bishop Who Ordained Gay Deacon is Accused of
Heresy," NEW YORK TIMES, February 28, 1996, pp. A8.
Interested persons might also wish to follow the campaigns for the
Republican nomination Buchanan, Keyes, Dole and others to discern that
party's "attitude" toward homosexuality.
Item: Wood holds that "if articles [i.e., the reference is to
Lyman and Scott, A SOCIOLOGY OF THE ABSURD] with such slanted statements
were printed frequently the country would be thrust backwards, in tems of
open-mindedness". There are two points of concern here.The first has to do
with "slant". I confess I do not know what "slant" Wood is talking about,
as there is no definition of it in the commentary. If Wood thinks that
furtive homosexual encounters in bathrooms or advertised homosexual
prostitution (See Advocate Magazine, classified section for some good
examples) do not occur, or that they do not separate satisfaction of the sex
urge from deep affection for the sex partner, then Wood does not understand
the character of the life-style that many, of course not all, homosexuals
live. I recommend reading some of the excellent ethnographies on the
subject for enlightenment.
If Wood believes that to print and circulate articles that have a
"slant" that is offensive to some people, or even a majority of people, is
"thrust[ing]" the country "backwards in terms of open-mindedness", then Wood
has a deep misunderstanding of the principles of freedom of speech and the
press that are embodied in the first amendment to the Constitution. Of
course Wood is entitled to the opinion presented in the comment on Scott's
and my book. But, I hope that Wood will not mind if I continue to write and
be published in accordance with my rights under the Constitution and if I
oppose all attempts to censor my writing!
Yours sincerely,
Stanford M. Lyman, Ph.D.
Robert J. Morrow Eminent
Scholar and Professor of
Social Science, Florida
Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida 33431