brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (08/21/84)
Recently, a man was killed by a gang of four teenage youth who were involved in the game of "queer bashing". Why? Where did they learn that it is OK to beat up "queers" and kill them? Who taught them that "fags" are not people? Was it their mothers, who taught them this? One of the punks' mother says, refering to her son, "I thought he was such a good human being." Was it their fathers, who taught them to hate people who are different? Did the idea that gay people are less than human come from the preacher or from the police? Many of those people are involved in the continued opression of gays, did their hatred flow into these boys? Will you teach your children that gays are bad, and may freely be killed? Will you do it overtly, or will it just be an accident? Is there a difference? Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (08/24/84)
[Why does queer-bashing exist?] I've certainly never been privy to the inner thoughts of a queer-basher, but the only motive I've ever been able to understand in such attacks is fear. To the queer-basher, a gay person is some sort of threat, and must therefore be put in his/her place. The motivation is therefore not unlike that of the anti-Semite, racist, or rapist. That's a pretty common analysis. But what's missing is the fact that the queer-basher has to stop thinking of his prey as a human being. Just as Nazi ideology called the Jews "germs", a queer-basher must have lost sight of the fact that both he and his victim are God's creation. (I use the masculine pronoun here, as I've never heard of any female queer-bashers.) Both the queer-basher and the Nazi need an ideology. The Nazi ideology was based on the quite extensive strain of racist writing found in nineteenth-century Germany. The ideology of the queer-basher is based on the preachings of the "Christian" Right, whose incessant vilification of all those who disagree with it are about as Christian as the Spanish Inquisition. I'm not sure whether this should be continued in net.motss.
rjb@akgua.UUCP (08/30/84)
>Recently, a man was killed by a gang of four teenage youth who were >involved in the game of "queer bashing". Why? Where did they learn >that it is OK to beat up "queers" and kill them? Who taught them >that "fags" are not people? > >Was it their mothers, who taught them this? One of the punks' mother >says, refering to her son, "I thought he was such a good human being." >Was it their fathers, who taught them to hate people who are different? >Did the idea that gay people are less than human come from the preacher >or from the police? Many of those people are involved in the continued >opression of gays, did their hatred flow into these boys? > >Will you teach your children that gays are bad, and may freely be >killed? Will you do it overtly, or will it just be an accident? > >Is there a difference? > >Richard Brower Fortune Systems >{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower First of all, I think your "Are you still beating your wife ?" rhetorical style is getting in the way of some serious thinking by you on the matter. Queer bashing and the more traditional forms of minority harrassment like cross burning and lynching are not necessarily blameable (sp ?) offenses wrt "institutions" like the police or the clergy. I think these stem from home grown attitudes that eventually permeate the culture and thus the institutions that people are a part of. I teach my children that gays are suffering from a delusion that is closely tied in with a moral problem. BTW my definition of a delusion is faulty understanding about something that is in itself legitimate - like sexuality. I teach them that they should not permit sexual liberties to be taken with them by ANYONE male or female. And finally I teach them to be physically gentle, to turn the cheek, go the extra mile, but that it is OK - even required at some point to resist physical agression. Homosexuality is clearly outlined as sinful in the Bible and if that book is authoritative for you then you should transmit the many concepts both positive and negative contained in it. Certainly, queer bashing has no part in modern day Christianity. "Yeah I know, I know, Torquemada, The Crusades, etc. I hereby consign all flames to the flames..." Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/06/84)
re: >[Why does queer-bashing exist?] > >I've certainly never been privy to the inner thoughts of >a queer-basher, but the only motive I've ever been able >to understand in such attacks is fear. To the queer-basher, >a gay person is some sort of threat, and must therefore >be put in his/her place. The motivation is therefore >not unlike that of the anti-Semite, racist, or rapist. This is not true. While I do not understand the motivation of a queer-basher (being a Kingdom kind of a guy), the author's rhetorical device should be challenged. The acts of homosexuality and rape are quite unlike the state of being a Jew or a member of some unloved race. Homosexual acts and rape are *sins*. We understand from reading the Torah that such acts are not pleasing in the sight of the Almighty God. >Both the queer-basher and the Nazi need an ideology. The >Nazi ideology was based on the quite extensive strain of >racist writing found in nineteenth-century Germany. The >ideology of the queer-basher is based on the preachings >of the "Christian" Right, whose incessant vilification of all >those who disagree with it are about as Christian as the Spanish >Inquisition. Again this should be challenged. "Christian Right" is an imprecise term but it usually seems to refer to the views of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Can you support your rather outlandish statements with some quotations? --- David Brunson "May I help you?" "Please." "Thank-you!" "You're welcome."
brower@fortune.UUCP (09/06/84)
Concerning a responce to my article "Some Questions" which I will not reproduce here. >First of all, I think your "Are you still beating your wife ?" >rhetorical style is getting in the way of some serious thinking >by you on the matter. What I am trying to do is stimulate discussion and generate some serious thought on the part of parents about what they are teaching their children. >Queer bashing and the more traditional forms of minority harrassment >like cross burning and lynching are not necessarily blameable (sp ?) >offenses wrt "institutions" like the police or the clergy. I think >these stem from home grown attitudes that eventually permeate the >culture and thus the institutions that people are a part of. I agree with this sentiment entirely. It is the direct responsibility of the parents to make sure that their children are not taught hatred by these "home grown attitudes". And anti-gay attitudes have permeated all "Christian" institutions, therefore, it is your responsibility to make sure that these attitudes are not transmitted to your children. >I teach my children that gays are suffering from a delusion that is >closely tied in with a moral problem. BTW my definition of a delusion >is faulty understanding about something that is in itself legitimate - >like sexuality. I teach them that they should not permit sexual >liberties to be taken with them by ANYONE male or female. And finally >I teach them to be physically gentle, to turn the cheek, go the extra >mile, but that it is OK - even required at some point to resist >physical agression. Here is the meat of discrimination! By assigning the terms "delusion" and "moral problem", you insinuate that I am not in control of myself (suffering from delusion) and that I am am evil (a moral problem). What you should teach about homosexuality is, in your case, that you are biased of the subject, or at most that it is a lifestyle that *you* cannot subscribe to, but that some people do subscribe to it and that those who do so are as good and kind and loving as anyone else and deserve to be treated with the same respect that any other person is. I agree that you should teach them to resist *physical agression* and certainly not allow themselves to be treated in any manner that they do wish to treated in. Notice that I pointed out the term "physical agression". >Homosexuality is clearly outlined as sinful in the Bible and if >that book is authoritative for you then you should transmit the >many concepts both positive and negative contained in it. Gay practices are mentioned 3 times (that I have found) in the Bible, twice in the Old Testement and once by Paul. Christ never mentioned the subject. If you eat pork, shrimp, or catfish that tells what you think of the Old Testement laws, and Paul was against all sex (but had the understanding that "the flesh is weak"). But Jesus was a good Jewish man who kept all of the Old Testement Laws, why don't you? Probabally for the same reasons that I don't, some of them do not apply to today's world. >Certainly, queer bashing has no part in modern day Christianity. Unless you happen to subscribe to the tenates of Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" or San Francisco's own "Cops for Christ". >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} Thanks for this opportunity to expand or my earlier article. Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (09/06/84)
> The acts of homosexuality > and rape are quite unlike the state of being a Jew or a member > of some unloved race. Homosexual acts and rape are *sins*. > We understand from reading the Torah that such acts are not pleasing > in the sight of the Almighty God. Very wrong. Some people would say that the "state of being a Jew" is same as following all Orthodox rituals, hence it is an act, hence your distinction is but a myth. (rf. "Who is a Jew" discussion in net.religion.jewish for details). Yet some other people would say that not believing in Christ is an act not pleasing in the sight of the Allah. Yet some other people can come up with a religion wherein having name "Brunson" would be a *sin*. You can use the book of your choice as The God's word, but ZARDOZ will get you if that book is not "the wiZARD of OZ". I am referring to that movie, of course Mike Musing "... I'm just an exterminator"
rjb@akgua.UUCP (09/10/84)
>From the recent exchanges between Mr. Brower and me. Bob Brown = > Richard Brower = >> >I teach my children that gays are suffering from a delusion that is >closely tied in with a moral problem. BTW my definition of a delusion >is faulty understanding about something that is in itself legitimate - >like sexuality. I teach them that they should not permit sexual >liberties to be taken with them by ANYONE male or female. And finally >I teach them to be physically gentle, to turn the cheek, go the extra >mile, but that it is OK - even required at some point to resist >physical agression. >>Here is the meat of discrimination! By assigning the terms "delusion" >>and "moral problem", you insinuate that I am not in control of myself >>(suffering from delusion) and that I am am evil (a moral problem). >>What you should teach about homosexuality is, in your case, that you are >>biased of the subject, or at most that it is a lifestyle that *you* >>cannot subscribe to, but that some people do subscribe to it and that those >>who do so are as good and kind and loving as anyone else and deserve to >>be treated with the same respect that any other person is. I agree that >>you should teach them to resist *physical agression* and certainly >>not allow themselves to be treated in any manner that they do wish to >>treated in. Notice that I pointed out the term "physical agression". I apologize about my insinuations but what I believe and teach about homosexuality is just what I said. It is what I believe based on my life's experiences and what I understand about God's word. I believe and teach the same about adultery which would be (in my mind) a comaparable delusion and moral problem. The illogical jump you make is that because I believe that you are deluded and wrong is that I would advocate or applaud those who would do you violence. I think your unfortunate experience with disrespect and mistreatment should not be generalized to all who oppose your position. One of the oldest cliches in Christendom is "Hate the sin but love the sinner" which is another principle I try to impart to my kids. BTW there is almost no way I can express my thought contained in the last sentence without it sounding self righteous in print. It's not meant that way. Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}