30/6/94
Serving just causes often leads to actions that negate and harm the very noble intentions.
This came to mind the other day when, during a TV show, I heard a well-known and bold commentator, who defended the rights of homosexuals (and declared himself as one), commit an unforgivable slip: he named a deceased political figure, labeling him as homosexual and even added that he knew two of his lovers. The fact that the unfortunate politician had never allowed any revelation of his sexual preferences added to the scandalous surprise of the provocative statement. Thus, the defender of the "outed" proceeded to make such a striking posthumous "criticism" himself.
The justification seems obvious: knowing that public figures are homosexuals negates any criminality and eliminates the guilt of their preferences.
Moreover, if homosexuality is so natural, why hide it? The label, if not honoring, certainly does not harm the deceased.
Perhaps this was the thought process of this notable commentator, who had given us reasons to respect him in the past for his stance, making the fundamental mistake of shifting the struggle for the destigmatization of homosexuals from individual dignity and freedom to collective claim and confrontation.
However, there are no collective rights. There are no minority rights, especially considering that such a formulation indirectly legitimizes a majority. There are only individual rights.
An individual should feel free to advocate and act according to their will, right or wrong. No one needs to be convinced that homosexuality is both good and natural. It is enough to persuade them that, whether they embrace it or not, they must respect the opinions, habits, and beliefs of any other person. To respect them so much that they ignore them if the individual does not allow them to know.
Society must learn the right to individuality. Otherwise, the atmosphere will become increasingly suffocating, and individuals, instead of being liberated, will run to cover themselves within one of the many social concentration camps.
The effort of the distinguished journalist to establish homosexuality as equal to heterosexual practice is insufficient because it targets a very small part of the problem. The problem that concerns the respect for every individual practice, regardless of its official establishment.
One should seek acceptance, not tolerance or agreement. It should be every person's right to judge their actions, to decide whether to share them or keep them secret, and only they can assess the reasons that will lead them to choose one path or the other.
No one has the right to trample on the free and independent expression of an individual to support a broader goal. And even less so when the individual is no longer alive to react. Then the challenge is not even brave.
Plato Rivellis