arndt@3106.DEC (07/18/84)
Ken, I've got to know the answer to this -- do you think at all about what you post to 'net.motss', or do you spend time cooking up inflammatory lines just to get flamed at? }}} I think. >> I'm not knocking queers. (Yet) *note spelling correction* That, in and of itself, is a knock on gay people. (Think about it.) }}} I know Oh, and while you're interrogating gays about justifying their behavior, have you considered your own? Your postings to this newsgroup, as well as to 'net.singles', don't have a philosophical leg to stand on. (Is that becoming a requirement for submissions?) }}} Horseshit! >> The idea (your statement) that the expression of an >> individual's opinion about homosexuality (see >> I didn't say queer) is morally neutral is crap, >> plain and simple! Well, at least I won't have to labor under the burden of believing you to be morally neutral. }}} I would say there is NO morally neutral position. Every time you open your mouth to say this or that OUGHT to be, you take a moral position. >> Is Hitler ok? No. Why? See. >> Most people think queers are not ok. See. Sorry, but you can't equate Hitler with gays, or gayness in general. At least, I don't think he would have approved. }}} Dummy! I was not equating Hitler with queers. My point was (as with the dog and trees) to find SOMEthing that the gays thought WAS morally wrong and then ask them why. Hitler is just sort of a universal bad guy handy for such purposes. >> I think you are your own worse enemy. You scare >> the daylights out of the straights and get them >> angry. How, pray tell, would I 'scare the daylights out of the straights?' I don't spend my time running around trying to molest every 12-year-old male on the streets, and I certainly have better things to do with my time than prosletyze about heterosexuality being 'evil' or 'bad'. }}} Maybe you don't but others do. (Rene Guyon Society) All the more reason for YOU to justify your position and speak out against those who DO want to abuse our children. (NAMBLA) >> The blacks could appeal to an inate sense of >> right and fair play. And look where it got us before 1955 -- nowhere. Or am I to understand that Black people are entitled to be treated fairly, but that gay people are denied such a right? HOGWASH! }}} You are a misinformed asshole. Even Jerry Fallwell has come out for Gay civil rights. The point is political rights do not mean moral approval. >> The reason, the appeal that changed the lives of >> blacks in the last undred years or so was a MORAL one. >> Homosexuals have no such moral leg to stand on. So far, Ken, you haven't shown one inkling of the concept of 'morals'. You seem to consider this newsgroup a place to spout your own paranoidbeliefs and fears about homosexuality under the guise of 'morals'. The thought of you telling me where my morals should be scares the living daylights out of me. Perhaps you could take a tenth of the energy you have expounded deriding homosexuality/homosexuals and educate yourself on the subject? }}} You must have swallowed too much semen! You can't read. I'm not telling you where your morals should be, I'm asking. Perhaps you have a right to suck off your buddy till he deflates but when you come out in public and try to tell everyone that what you are doing is right you have to do more than just say so. Especially in the face of a moral tradition that is against such behavior! A slave standing up and saying it is bad to be a slave has a moral response ready made in our tradition. Ergo the advances of the civil rights movement. The majority does NOT buy the idea that queers are in the same moral boat with blacks. Any more than any other moral offender to our tradition (crooks, etc.). >> Gotta go. Write if you get ideas. }}} ok You too. Unless you'd just like to trade jibes. That's ok too. I'm still waiting. }}} Mmmm Waiting for Arndt. Maybe I can make that into a play. -- Mike Simpson