wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/27/84)
I have been following the discussions going on in this and other groups for some time now. I must say, it has all been very lively and interesting. I would like to add something that either might or might not be relevant to the discussion, if I may. Over the years, I have come to form some niches or categories in my thinking as it relates to homosexuality. In my mind, I have formed four niches into which I place homosexuals: Homosexuals, gays, queers, and animals. Now before someone starts flaming, I might point out that there are plenty of heteros who also fall into these niches alongside the homosexuals. In the first grouping fall probably most of the homosexuals I know. Fine decent people who contribute to society, do their thing without fanfare, and are just as well adjusted as anyone else. The second category, the gays, comprise that group of people who seem to have to keep telling everyone that they are gay as if they have some kind of complex. They walk around with badges proclaiming their sexuality as if it were a claim to fame. They march in parades with banners. Not just the Gay Pride Parade, all parades including St Paddy's with a sign saying Gay Irish Unite. These people, in my mind, have a communication problem. I could care less if they are gay or not, so why keep telling me they are? It seems as if their nvolvement in Gay Rights is nothing more than an opportunity to perform public scourging. It seems to make them feel better if they keep proclaiming their gayness. I only get annoyed by these people, but I can tolerate them. Hold the flame. I also get annoyed with straights who do essentially the same thing, especially around St Patrick's Day when I have to go through the Kiss Me I'm Irish syndrome. My next category is one that will probably bring on the real flames. Queers, for lack of a better word. These are the guys (I have never seen women do this) that insist on parading down the street in New Hope, Pa, arms all entangled, tounges in ears, dressed in only bikini shorts (very tight), with often, the tip of their organ casually peeking out of one leg of their shorts. This is what I call a queer. They perform their little sexual scenarios on main streets in number of gathering places around the country. When not making asses of themselves in New Hope or out on the Cape, they gather in psuedo macho clumps, leather and all, in bars where the atmosphere smacks of early Marlon Brando. What I see they are trying to do is nothing more than upset the straights. My biggest objection to queers is their attitude towards other people. They just don't give a damn how others feel about someone performing a sex act on the street. I don't care if they are, at least moderately dressed (comparable to the rest of the folks on the street), holding hands (yeah, I know, just like straights), and behaving with some sembalance of street decorum. If they want to orgy, take it home or to some secluded spot. A roll in the hay in a downtown public park at high noon on a Saturday is not my idea of decorum. BTW, I have seen this type of behaviour several times and it always brings my blood to a boil. I have had my kids with me on several of these occasions and it caused us to cancel plans. (I don't believe in straights performing in the park in this manner either.) I'm not talking about casual intimacy here, I'm talking Fondle City, no holds barred. My last group of beings is resereved for animals. These are the ones, homosexual or heterosexual, who prey on children. These things (I hesitate to call them people) are sick. These are the ones we read most about in the media and leave everyone with a formed opinion about all homosexuals. Here we have the NAMBULA bunch. Here we have the guy who rapes a 5-year old. Here we have the dregs of society. We don't often see these THINGS in society until they surface after performing oneof their henious acts. I have no use for them and I hope noone else does. Well, that's all I wanted to say. I only hope I haven't offended anyone with my personal categorizing system. That's just the way I see it from here. I'm not out to bait the members of this group, I just thought you might be interested in hearing how one person views the discussion from this side of the fence. I know there will be quite a few who disagree with how I feel, but if we didn't have disagreements, there would be no horse races, and Monmouth Park would be closed, and the tax rate in our county would go up, and I would have to get another job to pay the taxes, and my family would suffer, and I would suffer, so disagreements are fine with me so I don't have to suffer. T. C. Wheeler
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (06/28/84)
> Over the years, I have come to form some niches or categories > in my thinking as it relates to homosexuality. In my mind, I > have formed four niches into which I place homosexuals: > Homosexuals, gays, queers, and animals. I find your use of the word "queer" offensive. It reminds me of the statement I've heard that "there are blacks and there are niggers." The reasoning behind this *almost* makes sense. Some people are black, some people are jerks, and some people are both. Fine. But why do we need a special word for black jerks? And why choose a word which has been used to degrade all blacks? > Now before someone starts > flaming, I might point out that there are plenty of heteros who > also fall into these niches alongside the homosexuals. Then why didn't you just say, "There are decent people, nerds, perverts, and animals." Where did homosexuality come into it? Why did you post this to net.motss??? > The second category, the gays, comprise that group of people > who seem to have to keep telling everyone that they are gay > as if they have some kind of complex. They walk around with > badges proclaiming their sexuality as if it were a claim to > fame. They march in parades with banners. Not just the Gay > Pride Parade, all parades including St Paddy's with a sign > saying Gay Irish Unite. These people, in my mind, have a > communication problem. I could care less if they are gay > or not, so why keep telling me they are? Just look around you. We heterosexuals are always making such a godawful big deal about our sexuality! But you want gays to keep it quiet... > Well, that's all I wanted to say. I only hope I haven't > offended anyone with my personal categorizing system. I'm afraid you have. > I know there will be quite a few who disagree > with how I feel, but if we didn't have disagreements, there > would be no horse races, and Monmouth Park would be closed, > and the tax rate in our county would go up, and I would have > to get another job to pay the taxes, and my family would suffer, > and I would suffer, so disagreements are fine with me so I > don't have to suffer. Well, they won't be shutting down Monmouth Park this year... -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/30/84)
T.C., You say you equally dislike gays & heteros who are publicly assertive or lewd. Yet you use words like "queers" and "animals" and even "gays" snidely to classify gay people. The best label they merit is the rather priggish "homosexual", not unlike the 50s "N/negro"; and considering the contents of your other categories, "homosexuals" sounds a lot like well-heeled mostly closeted gays (for whom a form of "tole- ration" on the part of most heteros existed even in the bad old days before Stonewall, a "toleration" that wasn't in the least incompatible with the simultaneous and often proximate existence of vicious abuse and discrimination). What sort of equal regard (for people you dislike) is that? What are the equivalent slurs for heteros? There's none for "queers" (it's the only apt term? I can think of a dozen others not offensive) and, when applied to heteros, "animals" is far less derogatory (said of men it's often a grudging compliment, of women an expression of wonder at impressive sexual appetite). And there's none for "gays": heteros as such have never been victims of bigotry. Your language does not suggest you're merely giving a candid expression of your dislikes. Furthermore, the category "animals" is bogus; it fails to specify a subset of the gay population based on variation of a characteristic associated with homosexuality but does succeed in resurrecting the ancient smear of child molesting; its inclusion is illogical and bizarre. It's been my experience that when people decry the "public lewdness" of gays (looking for sex in a subway john is after all "being a public nuisance") or even merely gay politicking for basic rights that still don't exist or casual publicity in a world that would rather not have homosexuals, they're resorting to a polite convention for expressing bigotry. Maybe it's personal taste on your part and not bigotry, as you say. But the odds seem to be against it. Would you ever post a similar description of, say, Blacks? I mean, you could accurately claim that many are poor, too sexual and otherwise uninhibited by middle class standards, figure more in the crime statistics, and often express great hostility to whites. But something makes you hesitate to do that. What is that "some- thing"? What sort of a reaction do you expect net.motss readers to have? That you don't even bother to avoid slurs says a lot. "De gustibus non est disputandum??" Ron Rizzo