Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus
For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma
Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties
In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home
The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained
I have to object to the diatribe against Peninsula that has appeared over the past few days in The Crimson. Insufficient attention was paid to differences in arguments and viewpoint. Speaking only for my article, "What About Love?," I know that my arguments were, when not ignored, grossly distorted and misrepresented.
I never said that romantic love is impossible between men or between women. On the contrary, I said that conservatives are wrong to be dogmatic on this question and wrong to rely on natural "law," religious tradition or a feeling of repugnance as a guide to what is true or possible.
On the matter of "family values," I said that conservatives overstate the importance of the family. The most important question is the one that appeals to pride, ambition and every man's desire to get the best from life: the question of happiness and romantic love.
I did say, however, that the practice of casual sex or of quick intimacy undermines the development of strong and delicate feelings and makes a serious, lasting love impossible. The Crimson considers a claim like this to be a pretense to expert knowledge, but it is also a pretense to expert knowledge to say the opposite, that it makes no difference.
In my defense, I can say that I have made an effort to think about it and see for myself what is true, rather than just accept what everybody else happens to believe. Also, I gave an argument or explanation, rather than mere assertion.
Finally, I did say that many fair-minded observers would notice a difference of character between gays and other men. By this I did not mean "psychological aberrations" or "sinfulness," but instead such things as feminineness in speech, looks or mannerisms; greater vanity, cliquishness and pique; less assertiveness or forcefulness of character; superficiality of attachments; obsessiveness about sex; and much greater promiscuity.
Those differences may not be universal, but they are common, and it would be strange to discuss homosexuality without saying the most obvious things. On the other hand, the only way to judge fairly is to consider the best case, not the typical case, and I was criticizing only the typical case. Manuel A. Lopez Peninsula staff member
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.