arndt@lymph.DEC (10/13/84)
Ah, Steve Dyer. Sorry to see you go. Net.motss will be the less if you
really stay away. And your friends.
I really don't think the role of "HOMO" ABSCONDITUS befits you. I must admit,
however, I'd just as soon not hear you guys swap recipies, reststops, and
your SO's favorate knots in the venetian blind cord (-the trick is to draw it
out slooowly).
(((Draw it out of WHERE, Martha? What's he TALKING about??)))
(((Sssh!)))
Perhaps that IS better kept private. After all there are straights reading
motss and that, no doubt dampens such exchanges by gays.
Could it be that a net like motss with both straights and gays as readers and
posters would find some friction no matter what the rules? I know, I know.
What is the point of a net like motss, with both gays and straights, if only
gay issues or issues posted to the liking of gays are allowed? Would it really
have made a difference if I had proceeded thusly:
"I say there, you interesting young homosexual chaps! Do you
mind if I ask you a question? That is, would it be crass of
of me to wonder out loud if you have a reason for why you live
as you do despite the lack of approbation by the rest of society?
What do you say to people who say . . . (of course I don't say
that - I'm just asking)."
Of course Paul Dubuc(sp) tried something like that and got trashed for his
pains. His mistake was to include a bible verse as a sign off. Of course
that labeled him as a card carrying homophobe, right? Right.
I can't say you haven't helped add to my view of homosexuals and what they are
about. It's been interesting to meet you as real, if overly sensitive, people.
Some of you anyway (overly sensitive I mean).
I can't help but believe that the public's view of homosexuals is often either
a fatuous wimp, a la T.V., or a balding, middle-aged toad with a bow tie and
an old vaseline ring around his wrist. Has your response to my nose twisting
changed that image any?
The more outlandish behavior of some gays in the public eye (marches, etc.) has,
it seems to me, not helped your cause. But getting to know some of you if only
on the screen, has been interesting.
Some have asked me what I have against gays. Nothing really. Except that the
ones here, with a few exceptions, refuse to talk back unless I say pretty
please and smile and just about accept their assumptions before we begin.
I have not found gays in person to be that way. I think your defensiveness
betrays something. A lack of ability to explain or even understand what you
claim to be.
I have tried to point out to you that I feel that when you DON'T address the
issues I have raised you may only, in light of current events, be rearranging
deck chairs on the Titanic. But as you will. Other gays ARE and with a lot
more understanding than you guys and gals. They can see that the blush is
off the rose of the homosexual movement and they have some tough decisions
ahead of them.
I would have liked to have gone more into what YOU define as "homosexual".
(I know what various homosexual groups have come out with.)
Several have refered to it without defining what they mean. Statements like
"you don't understand what being homosexual means." So tell me.
Stand back!! Heavy stuff to follow! NO FLAMES INTENDED!
-------------------------------------------------
My current understanding of "homosexuality" is mainly that it is an advanced
form of masturbation- Masturbation 210. A narcissitic fasination with your
own genitals which only happen to be on someone else. I can't help but think
that it involves a rejection of the opposite sex and that that rejection is
unhealthy and a sign of unfulfillment. Yes, unnatural! Yes, I know you love
each other. Some of you at least. But there is lust (self-gratification just
as in similar hetero relationships) as well, among promiscuous parties. I think
lust settles down into a relationship or becomes sick. Is same-sex sexual love
a legitimate completion of human sexuality given there are two sexes?
So I see you as stuck in a pre-normal stage of sexual completion, sort of
like an overstimulated adolescent's afternoon with the family vacuum cleaner
(canister style . . er . I think). It happens, but is it "normal" to stop
sexual development there? All this rambling is without recourse to anyone's
"tradition". Just thinking about things from a general standpoint.
Growing up, "kids" do some pretty weird things. It only becomes a problem if
they get "stuck" -: at that stage and never outgrow it. I think that much of
what passes for homosexual "love" is of this type. People follow their
"feelings" rather than exercise their minds. Why should a father overrule
his "feelings" for his adult daughter? Etc. You see where this leads us?
Should anyone have to overrule any of his "feelings"?
Is there a line to be drawn, which to cross constitutes perversion? And on
what basis (value system) does one draw the line? It really comes down to
that hackneyed phrase, "two consenting adults". Does anybody get hurt? Them?
If them, does society have an interest in what they do? And is hurting
someone, whatever that really means, the sina qua non of morality?
The Christians say that homosexuality is wrong because it falls short of
what men and women were made to experience and be. It denies it. And that
homosexuals reap the foreshorting of human experience - what they could be.
As obscene as a retarded child!
Well, all this really doesn't matter any more. Homosexuals are on
self-destruct and there is a sea change (there for anyone with eyes to see)
in the values of our country. Let's just hope the elite whose values we
will be forced to follow leave room for the closet.
Forty-five new federal judges and a new supreme court "can't be wrong".
I don't think the Christian right is going to take over. I think it will
be the non-christian right using a mix of christian and humanist terms who
will impose values that the majority will agree with. I hear the new SS
marching! Get out the pink stars. Falwell will be one of the first to go.
What do you think? Or do you?
Till we meet at the barricades!!!
Ken Arndt