arndt@smurf.DEC (06/18/84)
Ahh. There. Fido has smoked a cigarette and is resting in front of
the fire. He's so cute! Man's best friend.
Now then, where were we. Oh yes, I was trying to ask the heavy questions
like what is your basis for what is right and what is wrong. Is there any
way to tell? Are we just left with the big fist? Fifty one percent and
it's ok? Why should we leave people to their own devices so to speak?
Remember if there IS no way to tell that there are some things that are
wrong (THAT IS ALWAYS WRONG - FOR EVERYBODY, like giving you a sharp stick
in the eye because you look funny or it feels good to me to do it) then
how do you have the nerve to say anything about me and my dog. (If you do)
Why not interspecies sex? Eh? I fully expect to see on the nightly
news (along with the rest of the day's important headlines) a story of some
guy's wedding to a tree. (Remember, every tree has at least one crotch)
The wedding will take place in some Christian church with the blessings
of the clergy (recently graduated from a name seminary).
Of course we'll see in print an expose of the "traditional" (boo)
church opposition (weak case anyway, the bigots!) to a man and his
tree. (What new and horrible diseases will come of this union? The
Dutch Elm thing that makes your prunes drop off? How's this topic for
rent control argument? NO CHINAMEN AND NO TREES NEED APLY)
Now hear this!!! Let's find something that all can agree on and argue
from there. The rubber chicken wack out gets quickly boring.
Suggestions:
o Where do you start when you talk about morals?
(Find a common ground)
o What is the point at which you would say that is wrong?
(Child sacrifice? or what?)
Not that you are going to change opinions or "prove" someone wrong, but
at least you might understand each other a little better.
Do you (anyone out there) believe some things are wrong (Always) and if
so WHY? Then close in on the straights and gays issue.
All this I feel, I think, I have experienced may or may not be of interest
but since you people seem to think it is important - my question is WHY?
To paraphrase Hugh, "It feels good, but is it right?"
Fido sends his/her (I'll never tell) love.
Ken Arndt
arndt@smurf.DEC (06/18/84)
Ahh. There. Fido has smoked a cigarette and is resting in front of
the fire. He's so cute! Man's best friend.
Now then, where were we. Oh yes, I was trying to ask the heavy questions
like what is your basis for what is right and what is wrong. Is there any
way to tell? Are we just left with the big fist? Fifty one percent and
it's ok? Why should we leave people to their own devices so to speak?
Remember if there IS no way to tell that there are some things that are
wrong (THAT IS ALWAYS WRONG - FOR EVERYBODY, like giving you a sharp stick
in the eye because you look funny or it feels good to me to do it) then
how do you have the nerve to say anything about me and my dog. (If you do)
Why not interspecies sex? Eh? I fully expect to see on the nightly
news (along with the rest of the day's important headlines) a story of some
guy's wedding to a tree. (Remember, every tree has at least one crotch)
The wedding will take place in some Christian church with the blessings
of the clergy (recently graduated from a name seminary).
Of course we'll see in print an expose of the "traditional" (boo)
church opposition (weak case anyway, the bigots!) to a man and his
tree. (What new and horrible diseases will come of this union? The
Dutch Elm thing that makes your prunes drop off? How's this topic for
rent control argument? NO CHINAMEN AND NO TREES NEED APLY)
Now hear this!!! Let's find something that all can agree on and argue
from there. The rubber chicken wack out gets quickly boring.
Suggestions:
o Where do you start when you talk about morals?
(Find a common ground)
o What is the point at which you would say,"That is wrong"?
(Child sacrifice?, I stain my shorts when I kill queers? - I
was born this way, it's not my choice)
Not that you are going to change opinions or "prove" someone wrong, but
at least you might understand each other a little better.
Do you (anyone out there) believe some things are wrong (Always) and if
so WHY? Then close in on the straights and gays issue.
All this I feel, I think, I have experienced may or may not be of interest
but since you people seem to think it is important - my question is WHY?
To paraphrase Hugh, "It feels good, but is it right?"
Fido sends his/her (I'll never tell) love.
Ken Arndt
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (06/19/84)
If Arndt weren't so damned enamoured with the sound of his own keyclicks he'd be like most readers who, when they find they have nothing to say, say nothing. This is a bona fide flame directed at Mr. Arndt's behavior; I admit it, I am glad to be doing it. His bizarre behavior has been pretty insufferable, but when he attempts to provide us his dull misinterpretations of articles on top of this...I give up! Dammit Ken, Ellen, and all the rest of us, were not discussing morality! The issue here (there are more points to be read in net.singles) is that there was not only public expression of an individual's opinion about homosexuality, which in and of itself is neutral (though it might be distasteful to some of us), but also public defamation of gay people as a class. There was speculation that gay people are underneath it all, straight. That we are somehow "failed" humans, incapable of REAL depth of feeling, unlike card-carrying heterosexuals. This makes ME mad, it makes Ellen mad, it makes anyone with any sensitivity mad, to see a class of people cavalierly disposed of with the surety that only the truely narrow-minded and presumptuous can attain. This is not a discussion of morality, it is an issue of etiquette. It is an issue of proper behavior and sensitivity to people's feelings. It is an issue of knowing when to express your feelings, knowing HOW to express your feelings and knowing when to SUPPRESS your feelings. It doesn't offend me particularly that Jeff or harpo!jrl or anyone else thinks being gay is icky. It DOES offend me when people use their personal prejudices to make ignorant or hate-filled unsubstantiated statements about any group of people. Now, at the same time, I do enjoy the chance to express my opinions to them in a spirit of education, that they might at least appreciate input from one individual from the group that they have maligned. With any luck, they might use the opportunity to listen, learn and perhaps change their minds, perhaps not. I have yet to see the same reaction from the "other side." All I read is sarcasm, hate-filled invective and untruths totally unrooted in anything except their personal chambers-of-horrors. Would I be willing to hear one of them engage in a reasonable discussion of the issues? Surely (though not in net.singles, doubtless to the relief of all here reading!) But it hasn't come to pass yet. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
djmolny@wnuxb.UUCP (Molny) (06/20/84)
I agree with Steve Dyer's sentiments (i.e. save the obnoxious value judgements for cowboy bars), but not his methods. Rather than filling the netways with flames and counter-flames from unsolicited opinionators, why not just ignore them? Silence more effective than argument. More articles from the same source? Hit the 'n' key. Doesn't hurt a bit. Regards, DJ Molny inhp4!mgnetp!hw3b!wnuxb!djmolny
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (06/21/84)
Deciding when to comment instead of ignoring someone's flame is sometimes hard to call. For example, I felt no need to act on harpo!jrl's posting, since it was so obviously outrageous. On the other hand, Ken Arndt has a pretty strange history here (ever read some of his postings to net.motss and net.women?), and I was quite worried about his attempt to turn this discussion into a philosophical discussion of morality (the business with his dog was an attempt to be a kind of reductio ad absurdum, I guess), since that was pretty clearly outside the scope of what people like Ellen and I were saying. I have to admit, I just don't have too much patience with many of his postings. Mea culpa. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
chrism@shark.UUCP (06/22/84)
Hello Ken. I thought I left you back in net.religion, but it looks like you've expanded your area of operations. Net keeps getting smaller every day. Just can't escape the wrath of God I suppose. Still looking for sweeping absolutes, eh? Why? Many societies and religious traditions get along just find without them, thank you. You, being somewhat stuck on Christianity, apparently feel that such an attitude must be impossible or 'evil' or both. More to the point, why should anyone in this group care about these moral questions? If they wanted to discuss them, they'd suscribe to net.philosophy or net.religion. I think you are muddying up the waters to no purpose; what do you hope to accomplish? Maybe you should move over to a more appropriate group, and let those who are interested move over with you. Give Fido my regards. Also, my pet parakeet will not be available tonight, sorry. Care to try a goldfish instead? Chris Minson
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (06/22/84)
From Steve Dyer: > The issue here...is that there was not only public expression of an > individual's opinion about homosexuality, which in and of itself is > neutral...but also public defamation of gay people as a class. There was > speculation that gay people are underneath it all, straight. That we are > somehow "failed" humans, incapable of REAL depth of feeling, unlike > card-carrying heterosexuals. It is curious that speculation that gay people are straight underneath is apparently considered defamation! Is being straight really so shameful? [1/2 :-)] I never intended it as defamation. I also recognize perfectly well that gays feel just as deeply as anyone else. (As I have indicated, the homosexual feelings I've had arose at times of strong [negative] feelings in my own life.) I do note with interest that Rich Rosen, of all people, agrees with me (in another article) that homosexuality is a chosen behavior pattern. > It DOES offend me when people use their personal prejudices to make > ignorant or hate-filled unsubstantiated statements about any group of > people. Now, at the same time, I do enjoy the chance to express my > opinions to them in a spirit of education, that they might at least > appreciate input from one individual from the group that they have maligned. > With any luck, they might use the opportunity to listen, learn and perhaps > change their minds, perhaps not. I have yet to see the same reaction from > the "other side." All I read is sarcasm, hate-filled invective and > untruths totally unrooted in anything except their personal > chambers-of-horrors. I will concede, as I have before, that I did address homosexuality largely based on my own experience of such desires, which is associated with highly unpleasant circumstances. I do appreciate the patience of Steve in coming out with a calm response. I am in fact learning that gay people can be very fine people in a lot of ways (e.g. one man in the cast of the local theatre show for which I've been doing lights is gay; but he is an intelligent man with a fine sense of humor and a very pleasant person to be around [in fact, he has a much easier time being friendly and even mildly affectionate with women than I do]; I do enjoy his company as a person). On the other hand, I confess to having been a trifle disconcerted when this man's [male] SO addressed me as "tiger".... I trust that none of what I have written about gays came across as either sarcasm or hate-filled invective. As to untruths, what I wrote of my own experience (my chamber of horrors) was perfectly true for me. Obviously you have not had the same experiences as I, so your truth is not identical to mine. (Shudder...sounds like I'm waxing philosophical. "What is truth?" -- P. Pilate) Seriously, though, do you know your truth, i.e. do you really know why you're gay? Some people do. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "...got to find my corner of the sky."