arndt@lymph.DEC (09/24/84)
I must say that Ken seems to read the most amazing literature; I certainly haven't seen anything quite like this before. What mailing lists is he on anyway? > I agree that it IS amazing! Unbelievable really! Your tone is interesting. What mailing lists indeed! "Ken seems to read . . . " I'm not reading anything that is not in the public domain or there for anyone who WANTS to look it up and I even documented where it came from. At least you don't try to deny the statements are true. Anyway, there was a rather long discussion of NAMBLA and children's rights very early on in net.motss, consisting of one person speaking out for total self-determination for kids and even infants (in the large sense--this was not limited to "intergenerational sexuality", as it was genteely referred to) and most everyone else saying how bonkers that sounded to them. I don't think there's much more to be said here. > Sorry, I didn't appear and start to grow like Topsy on motss till after that discussion, but that's not the point of my posting. So glad to hear that most if not all of the netters thought it was "bonkers". Now who else knows you think that? I mean who else in the "straight" world, because THAT'S where it counts!!! IN THE MINDS OF THE STRAIGHT WORLD YOU ARE, THAT'S ARE, CONNECTED WITH THESE PEOPLE!!! The Rene Guyon Society certainly see themselves as part of the sexual rights freedom movement. It's starting to sound like a religious "sectual" fight! All main-stream national gay organizations that I know of explicitly try to dissociate themselves from any such groups as NAMBLA. The key to remember here is that "child/adult" sex is NOT a gay rights issue, and the only groups who seem to want to make it one are the anti-gay forces and the {_members of such groups themselves. Even in Arndt's rather lurid excerpts from pedophiliac literature, there is interchangeable mention of both female and male children: where are the gay issues here? Why did Arndt not take this stuff to net.kids, or perhaps to net.singles and net.social, where he could take the straight community to task for their own shameful members? Naturally not, for he has no corresponding axe to grind there. One thing is clear: net.motss is not the place for this discussion. Arndt is being just a touch disingenuous when he claims not wanting to "tar" "homosexuals" with this brush, rivaling Paul DuBois' rejoiner, "Why, I'm only ASKING a QUESTION." > Document that statement! What groups have dissociated and where do they say so! If "child/adult" sex rights are not a gay rights issue then why do I see children holding signs proclaiming their rights to sex with whomever they "choose" in homosexual rights marches??? For instance in the recent march in San Francisco during the Democratic convention. Groups like NAMBLA and Guyon are filled with homosexuals! What the hell does North American MAN/BOY Association mean?? And as you may read if you care to the Guyon people are not particular as to the sex of the child they destroy. Yes, the quotes I presented listed hetero and homo relations, but how does the mention of both mean no gay issues in your mind? I know tumesence clouds conscience, but in your case it seems to cloud thinking as well. Really! Why don't I speak to others who are doing the same thing! Why pick on motss. Because I am speaking to YOU! That isn't against the law yet! You act as if to question your "lifestyle" in any of its aspects is (is jerk, in case you don't end sentences that way on motss). In my previous postings I mentioned heterosexual behavior and I assure you I don't condone child abuse by heterosexuals. I DO have an "axe to grind" with them on this issue. (Guess why I don't have an "axe to grind" with them otherwise, unless you consider the physical and psychological results of promiscuousity, - the issue we are looking at is homosexual behavior and they are not homosexual.) Anyway, you see this as picking on you. I'm sorry Steve but you really sound childish. "I'll take my balls home if you don't play my way!" I must say that not to let us play with your balls is unfriendly on this net. Just as in the community at large, there is no one voice in the gay community (and it is debatable that one can even speak of THE gay community.) Still, I think it is safe to say that only a very small minority supports the aims of such groups, with most people either against or indifferent. > I'm not so sure about not being able to find a focus of information about the gay community. There is a national network with a central message. Perhaps if you don't know about it I should document it all for you. I would agree with your second sentence. BUT MY WHOLE POINT TO YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT MESSAGE ACROSS TO THE STRAIGHT WORLD!!! Along with things like the health crisis in the homosexual community and its possible outbreak into the straight world, being seen (as you are more and more with each march that includes the children's crusade and each new interview with some bow tied balding middle aged geek slavering over four year olds "with a little massage who WANT . . .") you homosexuals are setting yourselves up to take it in the neck (a new sensation, unlike "fisting" you may not like). What to do? I'm not advocating full page adds or buttons "I'm not a chickenhawk", but the thing that started me off was Mike B's listing this topic at the end of a number of topics about homosexual lifestyles (HE sees it, it seems, as a homosexual issue) and I wondered in public if he really knew what "chickenhawks" really are. Don't tell me you don't agree with Rene (he's a real person) and NAMBLA, I believe you Steve. (Now there's two of us) I'll sit right down and write Jerry a letter to let him know too. Hope he believes me next time he gets all hot about your marches and all. Laugh all you want to about him, but he DOES speak for millions of people when he denounces you. And not just Baptists!!! One last comment about Arndt's feeling that his comments about AIDS and promiscuity haven't received a response. Nope, they haven't, and it's no wonder. Actually, it would have made a fairly interesting discussion, but unfortunately Arndt wrote off all his credibility with a large majority of net.motss with his earlier obnoxious behavior. It's actually pretty hilarious to see the recent spate of defenses of Arndt: all the guy needs to do is put on a tie, and suddenly he becomes reconstructed in the guise of martyr. Sorry, folks, all I have to judge him by are his words, and by my count, his recent postings haven't even BEGUN to offset his earlier behavior. We'll see. > Big bad Arndt, keeping you all from an interesting discussion. There you go again, hiding your balls. "Ma he's hitting me again" is getting a bit thin don't you think? You're actually keeping a score on my postings? Merde! I guess this one goes on the debit side. Hilarity is the wrong response Steve, they're trying to tell you something. How many good postings do I have to make to break even? Get ahead? (By that I mean be MORE than even - I have to be careful how I express myself on this net) Listen Steve, even you seem to be saying that you have seen a change in my postings, perhaps not this one. But let me ask you, how many people that you have talked to or heard of have changed even a little in respect to how they regard you starting from my position? How many people that you have met on this net have taken the time to research data and attempt to change from bashing to dialog? I deserve more than a sneer from you! Regards, Ken Arndt
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (09/25/84)
To make a comment about the phrase which set Arndt off, "chickenhawk",
I have always seen that used, not to describe child molesters, but
those who are attracted to slim, usually blond, boys just "this side"
of legal age, and those lucky enough (UGGH) to keep that look as they
get older. Of course, I don't know whether such people "card" their
acquaintances first, but we are now discussing the gray area of the
age of consent, where reasonable people may disagree. I am not going
to waste my time defending someone's right to a 16 year old, but at
the same time, if a 16 year old has the right to marry and have kids,
it seems logical to presume that there isn't quite as much
"victimization" present there as, say, with a younger child. Mom and
Dad may disagree; I prefer not to take any stand at all. Anyway, my
point is that I interpreted the phrase differently than you did.
By the way, just what IS this big national gay network you are
referring to? And what's the "central message?" I'd like to know just
what is happening. Sometimes I feel life is just passing me by in
this hick town... Where do I suscribe?
Both the National Gay Task Force and the Gay Rights National Lobby
have repeatedly made public statements disassociating themselves with
the aims of pedophile organizations. Naturally, we are lucky if any
of them gained more than the back pages of the daily newspapers, if at
all. Which brings us to the crux of the issue.
You seem to see the limited "P.R." ability of the gay community as
due to lack of trying. It is much more complicated than that.
Naturally one would like the "message" to get across to as many
people as possible
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (09/25/84)
Nothing like a modem hanging up... Here's the rest of my truncated
article.
You seem to see the limited "P.R." ability of the gay community as
due to lack of trying. It is much more complicated than that.
Naturally one would like the "message" to get across to as many
people as possible, but the gay rights movement is very young
compared to the civil rights movement. What we see here are the
earliest rumblings of a movement, one which is still not unified,
and which has only begun to make the attempt to change societal
attitudes, and here, mainly through small, local actions: changing the
attitudes of one's neighbors comes before the attitudes of the country
at large. Net.motss is one vehicle towards this. Having gay people
speak out and publically affirm their identity is one vehicle towards
this. Seeing openly gay people elected to public office (e.g. Studds,
Boston city councillor David Scondras) is one vehicle toward this.
As helpful as laws and ordinances can be towards ensuring equal
rights, one cannot legislate attitudes.
Your comment about society recognizing racial equality as an inherent
"right" is not qualitatively different from a respect for a person's
sexual and affectional preference. What you are seeing, though, are
attitudes at opposite ends of the time line. A comment like yours
about racial equality would have seemed equally outrageous, 100, 50,
even 20 years ago in some parts. Changing attitudes takes time.
Already the situation of gay people today is far far better than
20 years ago, even with the Brunsons still in the outback.
We will have come a long way when the claims of a Falwell are
dismissed out of hand by people, simply because they know gay
people and recognize the caricature which such demagogues present
as an enormous lie. Sure we aren't there yet. It will be a
matter of time. In most urban centers, there is significant
progress along these lines. You might argue that such "progress" is
illusory, and there are many more people outside the cities with
more retrograde ideas. Perhaps, but this is the nature of change;
it starts in the cities and only later is accepted in general.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA