arndt@squirt.DEC (11/16/85)
I raise your butt and . . . . ( a little homosexual humor there gang)
Well, thanks eric for your rebuttal, but it was a little foggy in the
thought department I think.
You say:
Whenever someone, foreign to our niche, views a gay relationship they
immediately focus their attentions upon the 'bedroom'. I really find this
maddening! Gay relationships, just like any other 'real' relationships,
*do not* revolve around sex. Yes, that is a part of it; but it's far from
the total picture.
*** I quite agree that the first thing that pops into someone's
mind when confronted with homosexuality is . . . sex! Er, . . . but what
is wrong with that, even when that is ALL that comes to mind?? I mean, is not
SEX one if not THE distinctive of a homosexual relationship?? Take away the
sex in same sex attraction and you have . . . FRIENDSHIP!!! Now I would agree
with those who might say that our culture inhibits rightful warmth and love
between members of the same sex and that ought not to be. Perhaps it is because
people are afraid of same sex sexual attraction taking place. You know, "hug
me, squeeze me, but touch my weenie and you're a fag (and I'm suspect)."
But you have a point that people often overplay the sexual aspect of homosexual
attraction. Perhaps parents may be forgiven, "I didn't raise my son to
be a . . . . " A mano y mano relationship without sexual outlet in any OTHER
relationship is monkish to say the least. Some have the 'gift' and some don't.
People are so rich and interesting in their characters and personalities that
just about any mold we try to fit them into falls short of a fair description.
Our societal rules and customs DO inhibit expression and sometimes hurt people.
So men or women ought to be able to have deep same sex friendships and not
fall into perversion of our biological sexual makeup - which I hold to be
hetersexual.
But it seems to me, even while sex MAY be overplayed in people's minds, that
homosexuality is ABOUT sex! So it IS fair to speak to it as an issue. Which
is what I was doing. I don't see how sex can be separated from homoSEXual.
You seem to be saying is that there is MORE to it than sex and I agree. But I
am saying a same sex realtionship WITHOUT sex is NOT homosexual!
You say:
I am not touting . . . this . . . is the perfect solution - because, it's not -
there is no such thing.
**** I agree that one can never find a 'perfect' love/sex
relationship with anyone. But what I AM talking about are our dreams, ideals,
and what we strive for and want in relationships. Sure we have to settle.
For a lot of things in a lot of areas of life. But for a man to 'prefer' a
man for sexual fulfullment of the 'dream' of being a sexual man is perversion
on the face of it. As for your claim to the 'hidden' wonders of homosexual
love/sex - there may be friendship but when it comes to sex it's the ole monkey
with the football again!
THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHERWISE FINE YOUNG (AND NOT SO YOUNG)
MEN AND WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS ABOUT 'LIFESTYLE'
AND 'SEXUAL PREFERENCE' AND CRAP LIKE THAT WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP AND
SAY 'THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES' - HOMOSEXUALITY IS SECOND CLASS, DESTRUCTIVE
EMOTIONALLY AND SPIRITUALLY (I'm not talking religiously here) AND CAUSES THE
HOMOSEXUAL TO MISS A GREATER PART OF HUMAN FULFULLMENT!!!!
To laugh at my saying the 'thrill of seeing your child born
and the thrill of that one woman, etc.' is to laugh at yourself. Because those
aspirations of mine are based upon the way we ARE made as I've said. I believe
you KNOW that and much homosexual expression is self-hatred for just this
reason. It's not all because of pressure from the unthinking, unfeeling
heterosexual cave people's reaction to you.
I reject the notion that you can't resist the pull toward
homosexuality - any more than I would buy the notion that you HAVE to be a
mean/kind, warm/cold person or any other such personality or moral type. I'm
attracted to stealing, children, animals, hurting myself in the shower. What
kind of a rational is that? None really. Merely having the attraction is NOT
a reason to DO something!!!! What is the JUSTIFICATION FOR IT? I know, I
know, you don't want to have to JUSTIFY your homosexuality (you've said so on
the net - not you eric - before.) What about justifying it to YOURSELF???
Or do you just do it because it feels good and it's the easy path?
I simply reject your claim to the possession of a fulfill-
ing love/sex relationship of the same sex kind. A man cannot fulfull the
total needs of another man. You should be honest and admit it at least. I'd
think you were wrong and less than you could/should be but at least you
wouldn't be trying to convince the world up is down and playing mind games
with yourself and others.
Sorry to carry on so. I'll step down now.
Regards,
Ken Arndt up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (0048) (11/18/85)
> THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHERWISE FINE YOUNG (AND NOT SO YOUNG) > MEN AND WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS ABOUT 'LIFESTYLE' > AND 'SEXUAL PREFERENCE' AND CRAP LIKE THAT WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP AND > SAY 'THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES' - HOMOSEXUALITY IS SECOND CLASS, DESTRUCTIVE > EMOTIONALLY AND SPIRITUALLY (I'm not talking religiously here) AND CAUSES THE > HOMOSEXUAL TO MISS A GREATER PART OF HUMAN FULFULLMENT!!!! > > To laugh at my saying the 'thrill of seeing your child born > and the thrill of that one woman, etc.' is to laugh at yourself. Because those > aspirations of mine are based upon the way we ARE made as I've said. I believe > you KNOW that and much homosexual expression is self-hatred for just this > reason. It's not all because of pressure from the unthinking, unfeeling > heterosexual cave people's reaction to you. NO. That is the way *you* are made. Not me. It is not up to you to decide what is fulfilling or not. How can you say? You're not me. Not everybody has the same requirements. We are made in many forms. The body and the spirit and the potential and the mind. All these things determine the protocol fulfillment. Do not project yourself on me. Some people can be fulfilled without ever having sexual relationships at all. So what? One finds what is right for one. Maybe you are projecting your own self- hate upon us. Your method of communication seems indicative of that since, for the most part, your messages are vulgar and insulting and tend to leave a person with a very disagreeable opinion of you. I personaly have nothing against heterosexual people, and do not classify them as cave people. > > I reject the notion that you can't resist the pull toward > homosexuality - any more than I would buy the notion that you HAVE to be a > mean/kind, warm/cold person or any other such personality or moral type. I'm > attracted to stealing, children, animals, hurting myself in the shower. What > kind of a rational is that? None really. Merely having the attraction is NOT > a reason to DO something!!!! What is the JUSTIFICATION FOR IT? I know, I > know, you don't want to have to JUSTIFY your homosexuality (you've said so on > the net - not you eric - before.) What about justifying it to YOURSELF??? > Or do you just do it because it feels good and it's the easy path? You are you to reject any notions. Could you have rejected the pull to heterosexuality? Homosexuality is *natural* for us (as per one of my last postings). It's not even a pull. It is part of what I am, like being Chinese. Why should I have to justify what I am? God made me this way, and it is part of what I always have been, just as being heterosexual is part of hwat you always have been. I have to justify moral decisions, but being homosexual is merely part of my state; it was not a moral decision. Being gay is definitely *not* the easy path. Dealing with predjudice from people like you make it difficult sometimes. But honesty is among the highest virtues, therefore I choose to live what I am instead of conform to what others would want. > I simply reject your claim to the possession of a fulfill- > ing love/sex relationship of the same sex kind. A man cannot fulfull the > total needs of another man. You should be honest and admit it at least. I'd > think you were wrong and less than you could/should be but at least you > wouldn't be trying to convince the world up is down and playing mind games > with yourself and others. > You are in no position to reject such a claim. What fulfills you will not fulfill me, and what fulfills me will not fulfill you. So what? Big deal. Not all people are the same. My relationship with my lover is quite fulfilling, and you are in no position to say it isn't. You can't be, because you have no idea what it is to love him like I do. And I am being honest. I do not play mind games. I sometimes think you are, though. -- Chris.
kima@pesnta.UUCP (Kim Altoff) (11/20/85)
Articles attacking homosexuality and responses defending the same seem to be inundating this newsgroup. It displeases me greatly that some people feel that homosexuality is a sin or that it is unnatural. But it is not proper to use this newsgroup to discuss the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. This newsgroup has been established to discuss the issues of homosexuality. As such, it is an excellent place to discuss AIDS, ARC, pertinent legal issues, advice, and many other fine topics. But when someone finds they have a problem because of their homosexuality and they wish to use this newsgroup to discuss it, then any replies given should concentrate on the idea that the problem should be resolved with a homosexual solution (i.e. it is improper to suggest that the person should try heterosexuality). Unless we the readers of this newsgroup stop responding to attacks, they will probably increase, both in frequency and intensity. As important as this newsgroup is to me, I will stop reading it if it breaks down to mere "yes, we are", "no, you aren't" type articles. Please, if you wish to provide rebuttal to an offensive article or wish to respond to an article in a way that denies homosexuality, please mail to the person involved. Please do not post the article for others to continue a debate that for many of us is not relevant to the issue (that being topics about homosexuality). Kim Althoff
thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) (11/22/85)
A brief note on Mr. Ardnt's latest tome-- What about the person who has tried heterosexual relationships, even marriage, and then tries homosexual relationships and likes them better? Ann Muir Thomas ...tektronix!reed!thoma "there's a hole in my head/ where the creature went through..." --Simple Minds
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (11/23/85)
-- > THERE ARE TOO MANY OTHERWISE FINE YOUNG (AND NOT SO YOUNG) MEN > AND WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS ABOUT > 'LIFESTYLE' AND 'SEXUAL PREFERENCE' AND CRAP LIKE THAT WHEN > SOMEONE NEEDS TO STAND UP AND SAY 'THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES' - > HOMOSEXUALITY IS SECOND CLASS, DESTRUCTIVE EMOTIONALLY AND > SPIRITUALLY (I'm not talking religiously here) AND CAUSES THE > HOMOSEXUAL TO MISS A GREATER PART OF HUMAN FULFULLMENT!!!! Once again Ken confuses morals with manners. Just because you take offense at the "homosexual lifestyle" does not mean it is immoral. And Ken, if you really believe that sticking a penis in a vagina is the alpha and omega of "human fulfillment" I pity you. No, I pity your wife. > I reject the notion that you can't resist the pull toward > homosexuality - any more than I would buy the notion that you > HAVE to be a mean/kind, warm/cold person or any other such > personality or moral type. I'm attracted to stealing, children, > animals, hurting myself in the shower. What kind of a rational > is that? None really. Merely having the attraction is NOT a > reason to DO something!!!! What is the JUSTIFICATION FOR IT? I > know, I know, you don't want to have to JUSTIFY your > homosexuality (you've said so on the net - not you eric - > before.) What about justifying it to YOURSELF??? Or do you just > do it because it feels good and it's the easy path? You can't have it both ways Ken (pardon the pun). You argue for the morality of heterosexuality because it is "natural". Gays tell you their same-sex attraction is natural to them, and you believe them, but now for some reason *they* have to come up with an additional *rationale* for their behavior. As for the "easy path", sure, guy--living in fear of losing your job or your life feels real good. > I simply reject your claim to the possession of a fulfilling > love/sex relationship of the same sex kind. A man cannot fulfull > the total needs of another man. You should be honest and admit > it at least. I'd think you were wrong and less than you > could/should be but at least you wouldn't be trying to convince > the world up is down and playing mind games with yourself and > others. You don't think many gays haven't tried the "straight" life? How can you possibly know what is maximally fulfilling to whom? If gays were proselytizing about the superiority of their lifestyle (you know, Ken, like you do) I could understand taking umbrage. But the consistent message I hear is only for acceptance--a simple "please acknowledge that I find fulfillment differently." Tread lightly with your "what's natural is what's right" dogma. It implies that sexual abstinence, for example, is immoral, as is just about any behavior that doesn't spread around the greatest number of human genes, by force (hey, that's natural too) if necessary. > Sorry to carry on so. I'll step down now. > Regards, > Ken Arndt Oh, an apology. Let's redirect this discussion to net.philosophy or religion, please. I take great offense to YAFB (yet another fag- bashing) in this newsgroup, but I do not confuse Ken's manners with his morals. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 22 Nov 85 [2 Frimaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (11/25/85)
In article <2874@pesnta.UUCP> kima@pesnta.UUCP (Kim Althoff) writes: >Articles attacking homosexuality and responses defending the same >seem to be inundating this newsgroup. It displeases me greatly that >some people feel that homosexuality is a sin or that it is unnatural. >But it is not proper to use this newsgroup to discuss the rightness >or wrongness of homosexuality. This newsgroup has been established >to discuss the issues of homosexuality. As such, it is an excellent >place to discuss AIDS, ARC, pertinent legal issues, advice, and many >other fine topics. I beg your pardon: I couldn't disagree with you more. First, whats the difference between misinformed non-gays telling us it is improper to engage in gay sex, and your unilateral edict about what is not proper to discuss within the confines of this group. >But when someone finds they have a problem because of their homosexuality >and they wish to use this newsgroup to discuss it, then any replies >given should concentrate on the idea that the problem should be >resolved with a homosexual solution (i.e. it is improper to suggest >that the person should try heterosexuality). I think that we are being should on , altogether too much in this statement. >Unless the readers >of this newsgroup stop responding to attacks, they will probably >increase, both in frequency and intensity. As important as this >newsgroup is to me, I will stop reading it if it breaks down to >mere "yes, we are", "no, you aren't" type articles. To live a Gay lifestyle in the current culture, is to be exposed to homophobic attacks on a daily basis. This electronic medium affords many otherwise shy people an opportunity to confront the source of their opression without fear of physical reprisal. Being dissatisfied with the tone or content of a newsgroup is a good reason to unsubscribe, and I heartily reccomend you do so if you don't like what you read. You can even take your ball(s) with you when you go. I suspect that your threat to leave if others don't conform to your plan for net.motss will elicit more negative reaction than positive. > >Please, if you wish to provide rebuttal to an offensive article or >wish to respond to an article in a way that denies homosexuality, >please mail to the person involved. Please do not post the article >for others to continue a debate that for many of us is not relevant >to the issue (that being topics about homosexuality). Please if you wish to be in charge of telling other people how to live their lives, please join the rest of your kind in net.politics. And for heavens sake don't work the bigots up into a lather, you know how they get. In all seriousness (as it has unfortunatly turned out to be) I personally find it cleansing and empowering to confront bigots and homophobes. I know that there are others who disagree with me and this group is an OPEN FORUM where everyone caan express their opinion. would You give us that freedom or take it away. LUX .. on Owen Rowley hpda!on
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (12/02/85)
> I beg your pardon: > I couldn't disagree with you more. > First, whats the difference between misinformed non-gays telling us > it is improper to engage in gay sex, and your unilateral edict about > what is not proper to discuss within the confines of this group. > ... > In all seriousness (as it has unfortunatly turned out to be) > I personally find it cleansing and empowering to confront bigots > and homophobes. I know that there are others who disagree with me > and this group is an OPEN FORUM where everyone caan express their > opinion. would You give us that freedom or take it away. > Owen Rowley > hpda!on The big difference is that 'net.motss' was formed for the discussion of gay-related issues, but not for right/wrong harangues. This was stated in the first posting announcing its creation, and it becomes necessary now and again to repeat this. You may find this kind of interaction "cleansing", but we had a spate of this about a year or so ago, and "tiring" is a more apt phrase, precisely because there is so little opportunity for discussion between the defenders of both sides. It takes vigilance and restraint to keep any such exchange from degenerating into net.abortion histrionics. It is absolutely proper for the readers of a newsgroup to apply peer pressure in urging overeager participants to keep to the discussions for which the group was formed. This is hardly censorship: you may "empower" yourself via private mail, or even poll the constituency for the creation of a new news group devoted to the exchanges between homophobes and homophiles. But it is wrong of you to get on Kim's case for pointing out the groundrules which form the basis of all USENET groups. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA