arndt@lymph.DEC (08/03/84)
I find it to be very interesting that you can only concentrate on the verbal abuse (right or wrong as that might have been) and not on the questions I raised. Is it because you only have slogans for replies? Paul D. raised some of the same questions without the abuse and didn't receive (in my opinion) any worthwhile answers either. I think that no matter in what fashion the questions were framed the result would always be the same. To advance your cause you appropriate moral language of the Western tradition and stand it on it's head. So the net is not open to discussion as to the moral right or wrong of homosexuality? Ok. Sorry, wrong forum. There is however, a public forum in which you had better be prepared with more than slogans and calls for keeping it all very polite. You do yourselves no favors by merely asserting the line that you can't help being homosexual because the vast majority, I believe, do not buy that and will not buy that without some kind of data or cogent argument to back it up. That's what has been missing from our little exchanges. Of course I realize how upset you all (all?) were over naughty language from me. I should have remembered your virgin ears. I think the net etiquette issue is a conscious or unconscious red herring raised so you don't have to face the hard questions here on the net. But you will have to face them elsewhere. It's been charming. So long. Ken Arndt
schwab@iuvax.UUCP (08/06/84)
Well, I do hope that this means we will hear no more from Ken in this news group. I have no problem with people raising questions and encouraging discussion if they have an open mind, but Ken, in spite of his constant reiteration of the I'm-trying-to-discuss-things- rationally-but-you-never-respond-logically message, has already decided the issue. I'd be very interested to know what his motives were for such extensive and drawn out contributions. Ken makes one mistake when he talks about gay ideology. There isn't any. If he would read the gay press he would find running battles about paedophilia, pornography, politics, etc. Of course, the main feature of "gay ideology" that he assails is the statement: "I can not help the fact that I'm gay, so I am not responsible for my homosexual acts, so the straight world should get off my back." A lot of gays have made statements very like this. But the entire question was of much more concern several years ago. Unless I am wrong in reading attitudes, it is irrelevant to very many gay people (I'll play it safe and not say most) what the reason(s) for their homosexuality are and whether it is congenital, psychologically acquired at an early age, or a conscious choice. If I can make a personal statement along these lines: I am gay. I don't give a damn about why I am. I wouldn't be any different. Ken's moral concerns are completely irrelevant to me. People like Ken wouldn't be happy unless everyone were Christian, monogamous, and heterosexual. Face it, Ken, the Christian, monogamous heterosexuals are a minority in this country and the world (by deed if not by word), Get off our backs. So long, Ken. Good riddance. David Schwab ...ihpn4!inuxc!iuvax!schwab
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (08/11/84)
I remember seeing programs about homosexual issues on TV 3-4 times.
Every time I heard a statement "it's in the genes", or
"that's the way I was born". Looks like there is a prevailent
gay ideology on that. Well, could be the biased coverage, but hardly.
Someone here suggested that it is just a thing to use while we'll
never know the truth, because the slogan is of a kind that the majority
would suck understandingly.
I do not think the question of whether homosexual practices are moral
is appropriate (2 adults want to make each other feel good),
but using a highly questionable concept to impress the people who think
it is appropriate, is a demagogical and myopic attitude.
The upbringing looks like a much more solid candidate then "the genes".
No one here was trying to rebut Arndt's arguments about the weaknesses
of the "born that way" theory per se. Trying to eagerly embrace it is
self-deception, trying to sell it to others is manipulation.
But then again, what isn't?