cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (06/14/84)
>I ought to know better than answer useless homophobic wool-gathering >like Mike Musing's, but.... >Here's a thought: has it struck you that your message is like asking >blacks to tell you about their genetic inferiority or Jews about their >incorrigible avarice (or taste for the blood of Christian children)? > Cheers, > Ron Rizzo This comparison overdramatizes the situation somewhat, but I still think that a member of a group can discuss the sources and reasons of prejudices against their group, etc... , without seeing red and cavalierly applying labels like "...phobic" or "anti...." (At least I think I can). Of course, accusations of great ignorance in the matter is the second best choice. Don't shoot me I'm only a keyboard player - Mike Musing
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/15/84)
Mike, Your original message was hardly a request for "detached" or "scientific" discussion/inquiry: the questions themselves that you ask are so utterly mired in the bizarre assumptions and distorted perceptions of homophobia that they're as misguided and unpromising as, say, Arthur Jensen's pointless musings on IQ test and racial differences. My reply doesn't overdramatize the situ- ation, but was meant to equate it with similar things like racist "science" (or "creationism" for that matter). Your questions display not only a primitive notion of biology that I find startling (but not unique on the net), but a very bigoted perception of issues. I don't know where to begin to reply, quite frankly, or if it's worth it. But you might start by reading C.A. Tripp's THE HOMOSEXUAL MATRIX (available in paperback), particularly the chapter "The Origins of Heterosexuality". And continue by looking for sociobiological literature on the issues (sexu- ality, reproduction, etc.) by biologists such as Edward O. Wilson, James Weinreich, etc. Yet I think this reading program may be off-target and premature. YOUR problem seems to be simply bigotry. And no one can make you deal with that except yourself. First you must have the desire to get rid of it, which I certainly DON'T detect in your messages. That's about all there is to say, Cheers, Ron Rizzo
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/17/84)
>This comparison overdramatizes the situation somewhat, but I still >think that a member of a group can discuss the sources and reasons >of prejudices against their group, etc... , without seeing red and >cavalierly applying labels like "...phobic" or "anti...." (At least >I think I can). I must have misinterperted your original posting. The analogy of homosexuality with bulemia is HARDLY an invitation to discuss "sources and reasons of prejudices..." In fact, nowhere in your original article could I see anything which remotely resembled this. What I *did* see seemed so bizarre and ludicrous that I didn't bother to respond. I'm afraid that Ron's comparison fits exactly. Since you have expressed a bit of concern about your phrasing in your subsequent messages, let's just chalk it up to a lapse in judgement, and go on from there. If you ARE truly interested in examining "sources and reasons of prejudice" or anything else in the way of gay issues, please start afresh. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (06/22/84)
> Yet I think this reading program may be off-target and >premature. YOUR problem seems to be simply bigotry. And no one >can make you deal with that except yourself. First you must have >the desire to get rid of it, which I certainly DON'T detect in >your messages. > > That's about all there is to say, > > Cheers, > Ron Rizzo Ron, what did you mean by the "racist science"? Was it the correlation between race and intelligence? It is (if you view IQ as a significant indicator) a fact. Whether it is due to cultural differences only, or genetic factors as well, is still an open question. For more reading you can use any PSYCH-200 book. But I would not recommend you doing that right away, because you seem to be too fond of mounting amazingly irrelevant comparisons, doing momentous little analysis of other people's problems, attacking somebody else's grandmother's views, and waiving the banner of righteous wrath and supreme knowledge. It looks like prejudice is your problem more then it is mine (to the point of making you hallucinate, it seems), while the supreme arrogance may be just a trademark. I do not really appreciate straining to keep up with the insolent tone you introduced - probably getting old and lazy. Net.singles contains more stuff that I generated on the matter about 2 weeks ago - please ignore thoroughly. Mellowly yours, Mike Musing