Major S.F. newspaper accepts anti-gay ad for $35,000
Ezekiel Krahlin
of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
history for the greatest betrayal to its own people. We have also
recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
its gay population. Now, I see my suspicions confirmed: just more
phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
I do hope that, somehow, the S.F. Examiner back off...but supposedly,
the ad will be out for this Sunday's edition. Well! The "Sunday
Edition" is actually a composite of our two major newspapers: the
Examiner, and the Chronicle...so they are both implicit.
Go to their "S.F. Gate" web site at:
Or their staff page at:
Where you'll have phone numbers and e-mails to complain.
Or you can send your feedback directly to this e-mail:
---
Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
for the challenge!
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
Speedbyrd :>
(Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
>of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
>religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
>
>So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
>history for the greatest betrayal to its own people. We have also
>recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
>than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
>consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
>
>I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
>its gay population. Now, I see my suspicions confirmed: just more
>phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
>
>I do hope that, somehow, the S.F. Examiner back off...but supposedly,
>the ad will be out for this Sunday's edition. Well! The "Sunday
>Edition" is actually a composite of our two major newspapers: the
>Examiner, and the Chronicle...so they are both implicit.
>
>Go to their "S.F. Gate" web site at:
Living near SF, I can verify that. SF is the most self centered,
selfish, egotistical, over-rated place I've ever been. $ talks,
gays walk. I retract what I said earlier about 'gay mecca'.
It's not all that it appears to be. If it was only me involved,
I would have left here long ago. Wish it was that easy.
The Speedbyrd(tm) :>
Ezekiel Krahlin
:>) wrote:
>Living near SF, I can verify that. SF is the most self centered,
>selfish, egotistical, over-rated place I've ever been. $ talks,
>gays walk.
It wasn't like that in earlier years, as a result of the Free Speech
Movement. But things went on the downslide some time around 1976,
accelerating in the late 80s...to where we are now. (Have you
considered a move to Portland? I am. Though moving out of the entire
godforsaken country is the best way to go. Amsterdam!)
I am typing this letter here in San Francisco, after having watched
the first few minutes of the 10 o'clock news on channel 5, KPIX. Their
"most important" coverage tonight, was on the growing garbage strike.
*Then they spent a brief minute on the FULL PAGE anti-gay ad that will
appear in this Sunday's Examiner/Chronicle.
The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
Well, then, where are the ads from the KKK that Jewish people killed
Jesus, but they can be converted? Or ads from the Aryan White
Resistance, that black people are subhuman, and should be relegated to
zoos? After all, that's their right to free speech too, isn't it?
It is obvious to me that homophobia in Amerika is overwhelming us.
That if it were just a problem with the religious right, it would
never have gone this far. In fact, I conclude that we have far less
hetero friends in political office (or in our homes, neighborhoods,
workplaces and clubs), than most of us care to admit.
San Francisco is a melange of minorities...and we all have our
differences and arguments. Yet all minorities but one, can safely
visit and enjoy neighborhoods of any other minority. It is only us
gays who are so terrorized by the other minorities. And the city does
little about it.
Now's a good time to test whether or not your hetero associates are
really gay-friendly. Don't be assuaged by their claims, "What a
shame!" Let's see 'em put their money where their mouth is. If I were
hetero, and cared about my gay friends, I'd be walking in shame
now...and would put away my public displays of het affection, for the
sake of their freedom, and respect that Amerika still denies us gays.
I think we should have our own interviewers, walking up to straight
couples in gay neighborhoods, and ask them why they feel it's okay to
display their affections in public in gay areas, when gays can't do
the same in their straight neighborhoods and hangout. We should ask
them why they smooch in our bars and clubs, yet don't let us do the
same in theirs. I'd ask them would they invite their gay friends to
hetero clubs, and encourage them to feel free to smooch...that they'll
protect them if any homophobic outbreak occurs?
I think would should declare a "Hetero Shame Week", immediately
following "Gay Pride Week". That is...if we don't all get rounded up
first, and tortured in laboratory experiments, or made into wallets
and lamps.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
>
> So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
> history for the greatest betrayal to its own people. We have also
> recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
> than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
> consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
Well Zeke perhaps it's time to call up all your frinds, amd have them
call thier freinds and then go down to the Examiner and picket on
publication day... perhaps burn a couple of empty police or examiner
cars... that sure got a lot of attention last time it happned in SF!
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
+==================================================================+
Ezekiel Krahlin
Krahlin) wrote:
>The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
>to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
I also believe that free speech in this country, is being abused, and
used as a weapon of hatred against gays. All the other western
democracies have outlawed homophobic attacks--both verbal and
physical. Yet they defend free speech, don't they?
I think that Amerikan free speech is a distortion of what it's
supposed to be...in that it wrongly defends even the most violent of
hate speech. All liberties must have their restrictions, else they
soon lose relevance. The restriciton on free speech should be this:
No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another person.
No invocation of one's religious beliefs to promote the
injury, death, or torture of another person. (As in: "God says
these faggots should be stoned to death.")
No promoting prejudice against a people or person, that is
known to provoke violence or other persecution against them or
her/him.
---
Q. If you had a hetero over for
dinner what would you feed him?
A. Leftover dog food.
Ezekiel Krahlin
:>) wrote:
>>I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
>>its gay population. Now, I see my suspicions confirmed: just more
>>phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
Here is another letter I have sent to various local and national news
media. Please feel free, anyone, to use this yourself, or to help form
your own letter.
---begin letter
Dear Editor:
I am typing this letter here in San Francisco, after having watched
the first few minutes of the 10 o'clock news on channel 5, KPIX. Their
"most important" coverage tonight, was on the growing garbage strike.
Then they spent a brief minute on the FULL PAGE anti-gay ad that will
appear in this Sunday's Examiner/Chronicle.
The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
Well, then, where are the ads from the KKK that Jewish people killed
Jesus, but they can be converted? Or ads from the Aryan White
Resistance, that black people are subhuman, and should be relegated to
zoos? After all, that's their right to free speech too, isn't it?
The San Francisco Examiner--one of the major newspapers of northern
California--has gladly paid its Judas price of $35,000 to betray its
gay citizens. So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco
shall go down in history for the greatest betrayal to its own people.
We have also recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off
with no worse than probation...including where one judge blamed the
murderous consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol". Not to
mention various gay bashings on MUNI, our local transit, assisted by
its drivers and supported by its union...for which reason I have
renamed this service "The Homophobe Express".
I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
its gay population. Now, I see my suspicions confirmed: just more
phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
I do hope that, somehow, the S.F. Examiner will back off...but
supposedly, the ad will be out for this Sunday's edition. Well! The
"Sunday Edition" is actually a composite of our two major newspapers:
the Examiner, and the Chronicle...so they are both implicit.
Meanwhile, I suggest massive demonstrations and civil dissent at the
doors of your newspaper...as well as a complete boycott of your
people...that all present subscribers should cease, immediately,
buying your brownshirt newspaper.
It is obvious to me that homophobia in America is overwhelming us.
That if it were just a problem with the religious right, it would
never have gone this far. In fact, I conclude that we have far less
hetero friends in political office (or in our homes, neighborhoods,
workplaces and clubs), than most of us care to admit.
San Francisco is a melange of minorities...and we all have our
differences and arguments. Yet all minorities but one, can safely
visit and enjoy neighborhoods of any other minority. It is only us
gays who are so terrorized by the other minorities. And the city does
little about it.
Now's a good time to test whether or not your hetero associates are
really gay-friendly. Don't be assuaged by their claims, "What a
shame!" Let's see 'em put their money where their mouth is. If I were
hetero, and cared about my gay friends, I'd be walking with my head
lowered in shame now...and would put away my public displays of het
affection, for the sake of their freedom and respect that America
still denies us gays. Like Christianity, heterosexuality has blackened
its own reputation so badly, that I thank any gay-caring hetero should
avoid that term like a plague, and come up with some new word to
replace "heterosexual".
I think we should have our own interviewers, walking up to straight
couples in gay neighborhoods, and ask them why they feel it's okay to
display their affections in public gay areas, when gays can't do the
same in their straight neighborhoods and hangouts. We should ask them
why they smooch in our bars and clubs, yet don't let us do the same in
theirs. I'd ask them would they invite their gay friends to hetero
clubs, and encourage them to feel free to smooch...that they'll
protect them if any homophobic outbreak occurs?
I believe that free speech in this country, is being abused, and used
as a weapon of hatred against gays. Most other western democracies
have outlawed homophobic attacks--both verbal and physical. Yet they
defend free speech, don't they?
I think that American free speech is a distortion of what it's
supposed to be...in that it wrongly defends even the most violent of
hate speech. All liberties must have their restrictions, else they
soon lose relevance. The restriciton on free speech should be this:
1) No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another person.
2) No invocation of one's religious beliefs to promote the injury,
death, or torture of another person. (As in: "God says these faggots
should be stoned to death.")
3) No promoting prejudice against a people or person, that is known
to provoke violence or other persecution against them or her/him.
Meanwhile (until we earn our freedom as equal-class citizens) I think
we should declare a "Hetero Shame Week", immediately following "Gay
Pride Week"; here in San Francisco and in all other U.S. cities with a
significant lesbian/gay presence. That is...if we don't all get
rounded up first, and tortured in laboratory experiments, or made into
wallets and lamps.
HETERO SHAME WEEK: whereby all public display of hetero affection be
outlawed for that week. Anyone breaking that law would go to jail for
10 days, and be fined $500 (which shall be donated to one or another
les/gay rights organizations). Any hetero who can't afford the steep
fine, or time away from work...ought to heed well the advice to keep
his or her public affections under strict control, for the duration.
See how YOU (heteros) like it!
Sincerely,
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
---end letter
David Kaye
" I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
" of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
" religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
We've all agreed that "curing" says is bullshit, haven't we? So, let the
rightwing wackos waste their money on ads. As far as the Examiner goes,
let them take the money. I'd rather see the Examiner sell advertising to
anybody with an open checkbook, than do what they did when it was
controlled by W.R. Hearst junior, and restrict who could buy their ads. A
gay group could also spend $35,000 and buy an ad. There was a time when a
gay group couldn't do this in the Examiner.
Note that the Examiner has had several gay columnists over the years,
everyone from Armistead Maupin (one of the "Tales" series ran in the
Examiner) to current-day nightclub queen, Lord Martine.
" So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
" history for the greatest betrayal to its own people.
There is so much bullshit here it's growing magic mushrooms. First, use
of the term "mecca" is an insult to Islam. It's like saying "the gay
Jerusalem". Second, SF is perceived by many people as something it's not:
it is NOT a gay Disneyland. SF, like any American city, has its good and
bad sides. The *city* does not kiss up to or betray anyone. The *city*
is composed of 725,000 people of over 40 ethnicities, and every possible
variation of sexual orientation and political persuasion. To think that
SF is a *gay* city is to wear blinders. It's a city with lots of gay
people in it and it's a city that has made *some* strides, but that's
about it.
" I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
" its gay population.
That is correct. And no American city will. SF is not a gay city. It's
not a majority gay; it probably has no more than 100,000 gay people. It
still has a strong straight Irish working class bent. It's just 1/3
white.
SF is a refuge city. Vietnamese fled Vietnam and came here and to San
Jose. Filipinos left the Philippines after it went independent after WWII
and settled here. When war raged in El Salvador many of its citizens fled
and came here. People fled Russia when it reached the brink of financial
collapse -- and they came here. People from all over the world have
settled here because of SF's freedom. And, with their own problems with
broken families separated by thousands of miles, they probably have a lot
more on their minds than whether a rightwing group ran an ad in a
newspaper.
--
(C) 1998 morula: a globular solid mass of blastomeres
David Kaye formed by cleavage of a zygote
dk at wco.com
cub...@cjnetworks.com
Spee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:34:58 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com
> (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>
> >I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> >of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> >religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
> >
> >recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
> >than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
> >consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
> >
> >phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
> >
> >the ad will be out for this Sunday's edition. Well! The "Sunday
> >Edition" is actually a composite of our two major newspapers: the
> >Examiner, and the Chronicle...so they are both implicit.
> >
>
> selfish, egotistical, over-rated place I've ever been. $ talks,
> It's not all that it appears to be. If it was only me involved,
> I would have left here long ago. Wish it was that easy.
Silly people, complaining about how "anti-gay" SF really is.
Why don't you come to some other places in America and you can learn what
_real_ anti-gay hatred is like.
Here's a list to get you started:
Cobb County, Georgia
Anywhere, Alabama-Mississippi
Topeka, Kansas
Colorado Springs, Colorado
etc.
--
Mike Silverman -- cub...@cjnetworks.com
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
-
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
cub...@cjnetworks.com
News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com wrote:
> Well Zeke perhaps it's time to call up all your frinds, amd have them
> call thier freinds and then go down to the Examiner and picket on
> publication day... perhaps burn a couple of empty police or examiner
> cars... that sure got a lot of attention last time it happned in SF!
I assume you are referring to the White Night riots, which occured after the
assasin of Harvey Milk was aquitted of murder back in 1979.
If so, these riots were about as justified as a riot can be.
cub...@cjnetworks.com
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> It wasn't like that in earlier years, as a result of the Free Speech
> Movement. But things went on the downslide some time around 1976,
> accelerating in the late 80s...to where we are now. (Have you
> considered a move to Portland? I am.
Do you really think Portland is more "gay friednly" than SF?
Nowhere in the US is more gay-friendly than SF. You would have to travel to
Amsterdam to surpass SF.
I suspect that there is a certain element of complaining about the place you
live (a common patime for anyone) at work here.
--
Mike Silverman -- cub...@cjnetworks.com
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
ital...@hotmail.com
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
Yeah? So? I think it's *great* that the SF Examiner can suck $35k from the
enemy's coffers *and* generate more public discussion on this debate!
Way to *GO*!
--
Steve Giammarc <ital...@hotmail.com>
ital...@hotmail.com
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Here is another letter I have sent to various local and national news
> media. Please feel free, anyone, to use this yourself, or to help form
> your own letter.
>
> ---begin letter
>
> Dear Editor:
>
> I am typing this letter here in San Francisco, after having watched
> the first few minutes of the 10 o'clock news on channel 5, KPIX. Their
> "most important" coverage tonight, was on the growing garbage strike.
> Then they spent a brief minute on the FULL PAGE anti-gay ad that will
> appear in this Sunday's Examiner/Chronicle.
[...]
Ummmm... Sorry to interrupt this tome, Zeke. While it's certainly your *right*
to use an entire roll of toiletpaper to air your complaints and suggestions,
has anyone ever impressed upon you the savvyness of *brevity* when making a
point? Especially to those whom you *want* to pay attention? Like the public
media?
--
Steve Giammarco <ital...@hotmail.com>
George Spelvin
> I think that Amerikan free speech is a distortion of what it's
> supposed to be...in that it wrongly defends even the most violent of
> hate speech. All liberties must have their restrictions, else they
> soon lose relevance. The restriciton on free speech should be this:
>
> No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another person.
>
> No invocation of one's religious beliefs to promote the
> injury, death, or torture of another person. (As in: "God says
> these faggots should be stoned to death.")
>
> No promoting prejudice against a people or person, that is
> known to provoke violence or other persecution against them or
> her/him.
I agree that "free speech" has been distorted, however, I believe that
"promoting injury, death and torture" is already covered . . . I'm no
lawyer, but wouldn't this be conspiracy to commit a crime--which is a
crime? And, where do you draw the line at prejudice speech?
Instead of further limiting speech, how about protections for all people
regardless of their personal lifestyles (as long as whatever they do
does not impede or violate others' civil rights).
RavensHeart
>In article <35D51E...@SpamSux.laserfx.com>,
> News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com wrote:
>
>> Well Zeke perhaps it's time to call up all your frinds, amd have them
>> call thier freinds and then go down to the Examiner and picket on
>> publication day... perhaps burn a couple of empty police or examiner
>> cars... that sure got a lot of attention last time it happned in SF!
>
>I assume you are referring to the White Night riots, which occured after the
>assasin of Harvey Milk was aquitted of murder back in 1979.
>
>If so, these riots were about as justified as a riot can be.
>
>--
Ain't that the truth!
Allen James
>I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
>of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
>religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
Good. The SF Examiner should profit from these dumbshits. C'mon, people -
there's NO NEWS HERE. Religious Fundamentalists hate gay people, and
refuse to admit the legitimacy of our sexual orientation(s). Is that news
to anybody? If so, you must've spent the greater part of your existence
locked in a wicker basket.
I think it's AWESOME that all these nutjob extremist groups are gonna
waste so much money printing this crap in SF. I also think it's awesome
that they include so many TOLL-FREE numbers in the ads. Hey y'all-
somebody needs to design and print and DISTRIBUTE a flyer saying something
to the effect of:
"Bored while waiting for the bus? Well, throw off the chains of
Slow-Transit Ennui! Walk to the nearest payphone and dial one of the
numbers listed below. The call won't cost YOU a cent, but it WILL cost The
Religious Nutjobs Who Put That Silly-Assed Ad In The Examiner some cash!
Keep them on the line until the bus/train/trick arrives! Call them while
waiting in line over at Welcome Homo before brunch on Saturday! REMEMBER-
the LONGER you keep them on the line, THE MORE MONEY THEY LOSE!"
Then, pop it on a ZIP, go to Kinko's, and go apeshit posting them all over
the Castro!
Allen James
--
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
RavensHeart
wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:34:58 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com
>> (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>
>>I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
>>of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
>>religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
>
>
>Good. The SF Examiner should profit from these dumbshits. C'mon, people -
>there's NO NEWS HERE. Religious Fundamentalists hate gay people, and
>refuse to admit the legitimacy of our sexual orientation(s). Is that news
>to anybody? If so, you must've spent the greater part of your existence
>locked in a wicker basket.
>
>I think it's AWESOME that all these nutjob extremist groups are gonna
>waste so much money printing this crap in SF. I also think it's awesome
>that they include so many TOLL-FREE numbers in the ads. Hey y'all-
>somebody needs to design and print and DISTRIBUTE a flyer saying something
>to the effect of:
>
>"Bored while waiting for the bus? Well, throw off the chains of
>Slow-Transit Ennui! Walk to the nearest payphone and dial one of the
>numbers listed below. The call won't cost YOU a cent, but it WILL cost The
>Religious Nutjobs Who Put That Silly-Assed Ad In The Examiner some cash!
>Keep them on the line until the bus/train/trick arrives! Call them while
>waiting in line over at Welcome Homo before brunch on Saturday! REMEMBER-
>the LONGER you keep them on the line, THE MORE MONEY THEY LOSE!"
>
>Then, pop it on a ZIP, go to Kinko's, and go apeshit posting them all over
>the Castro!
>
>
Sweet, Allen. Sweet. Makes me wish I were back in San Francisco.
Oh, hell. I'll pick up a copy of the paper here and bombard them in
my spare time from Oregon!! LOL
Kin...@iname.com
cub...@cjnetworks.com wrote:
> Nowhere in the US is more gay-friendly than SF. You would have to travel to
> Amsterdam to surpass SF.
>
> I suspect that there is a certain element of complaining about the place you
> live (a common patime for anyone) at work here.
A close friend of mine,who visited San Francisco back in july 1985,brought
back a bad impression of it.He rated it as below the kind of gay environment
and social gay life he had in Montreal.While he travelled to several
countries and places in the following years,he never went back to SF.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
Having read a number of people's responses to this item, I am
withdrawing my sugestion to picket the SF Examiner.
Most everyone has focused on the cost of the ad $35K - a not
insubstantial sum about equal to my annual salary. It must take the
KKKristians quite a bit or time to raise this kind of money [e.g.: it
would require 700 fifty dollar donations] and they have been spending
thier funds lavishly - first the Washington Post, then USA Today and now
the SF Examiner. Presuming the cost is the same in each case [which I
know it's not] that's $105,000 they have spent placing the ads, not to
mention the cost of producing the artwork and the administrative
aspects.
Based on the reaction from the electrical contractor who's number was
unfortunatly published in the first ad, the majority of callers to the
toll free number 'had an attitude' and were probably outraged gays....
We also know that 'Uncle Fudge' and others have advocated calling those
toll-free numbers in your spair time. If this generates as little at
100 two minute calls per day, that's 200 minutes of long distance time
per day not to mention over three hours each day that someone must spend
answering the phone.
'Uncle Fudge' has also suggested getting onto the mailing list and
returning the inevatable donation envelope filled with a telephone
directory or even a brick [an arguement can be made that a phone book is
a valuable donation while a brick is not - unless it's to a buidling
fund]. The recipiant of these 'donations' must pay the postage on them,
a further drain on finances and consuming of administrative time.
The KKKristians are spending a small fortune on thier ads and on the
phone lines. In other words, thier recruiting campaign is costing them
big time to find a hgandfull of gays who believe thier Bible babble
[thier ads will not appeal to non-christian gays].
Let us encourage this lavish spending... let us send them useful
donations of phone books and call them often to tell them how much we
like the ads...
JTEM
L. Michael Roberts (News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com) wrote:
Zeke Krackpot wrote:
: > I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
: > of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
: > religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
: Most everyone has focused on the cost of the ad $35K - a not
: insubstantial sum about equal to my annual salary. It must take the
: KKKristians quite a bit or time to raise this kind of money [e.g.: it
: would require 700 fifty dollar donations] and they have been spending
: thier funds lavishly - first the Washington Post, then USA Today and now
: the SF Examiner.
What were they buying?
: Based on the reaction from the electrical contractor who's number
: was unfortunatly published in the first ad, the majority of callers to
: the toll free number 'had an attitude' and were probably outraged
: gays....
Are gay people the only ones who saw the add, or were they merely amongst
the few who would have reason to call?
: The KKKristians are spending a small fortune on thier ads and on
: the phone lines. In other words, thier recruiting campaign is costing
: them big time to find a hgandfull of gays who believe thier Bible babble
: [thier ads will not appeal to non-christian gays].
One of the people photographed for the ad -- and represented at an "ex
gay" -- is a local and he was featured on an independent station's news
hour. I'm not exactly sure how he managed to reconcile his being an "ex
gay" with the attractions he admitted to feeling towards other men. But I
suppose that's neither here nor there.
The target for these ads, the real target, is Joe & Jane Straightdude.
It's assuring them that being gay is a choice (dispite the fact that these
"ex gays" are still gay) and that people can change. It's telling them
that civil rights legislation, equal access to jobs, housing, marriage,
are really not necessary. "It's not like when someone is asian, black or a
women," the message tells them, "These people don't need protections
because they can change tomorrow if they want."
If these ads really were meant for only a fringe group of self-loathing
gay people then I'd say that you have a point. It would seem a lot of
money for nothing. But it isn't about them. It isn't the happiness of a
few confused individuals at stake. It's you and your rights as a citizen
that are at issue here. These ads provide the basis, the excuse, for folks
to toss aside all they know, all the facts, all the law and listen to
their feelings. "Fags are icky."
: Let us encourage this lavish spending...
Let us eat cake.
John
Ezekiel Krahlin
>If these ads really were meant for only a fringe group of self-loathing
>gay people then I'd say that you have a point. It would seem a lot of
>money for nothing. But it isn't about them. It isn't the happiness of a
>few confused individuals at stake. It's you and your rights as a citizen
>that are at issue here. These ads provide the basis, the excuse, for folks
>to toss aside all they know, all the facts, all the law and listen to
>their feelings. "Fags are icky."
Very well said, JTEM. I'm sure you hate to be the bearer of bad news,
as I do...but I think, like you, that this publication sets a terrible
precedent for the Amerikan public to bash gay people as a divine
right.
Censorship of pornography on the Internet will eliminate all gay
newsgroups and web pages...at risk of large fines and prison terms.
Having accomplished this much, the religious right will then feel even
more obligated to pass such censorship in the real world (not
cyberspace)...and all known gay establishments will be shut down. Just
as on the Internet, it will be forbidden to discuss gay issues, or
even use the words "gay," "homosexual," "lesbian", etc.
It will also be verboten to wear a pink triangle. How will we know
each other, in this new underground? Well, we can use words I already
proposed: "Tharacian" and "Hellene"...and instead of the triangle, we
can wear a blue rose (as from my treatise "The Blue Rose Militia").
It will become sport...to bash gays and bring our heads, as trophies,
to central church locations. The KKKristians are head-hunters. The
Castro will be overrun by militant bible thumpers in camouflage
uniform, and armed with bayonets and rifles. We will have no safe
quarter in any known gay neighborhoods.
Chemical and Biological warfare is not beyond the realm of
possibility...as in God's name, the KKKristians disseminate insipid
diseases and flesh-eating insects, throughout gay turf. They will be
engineered to not go beyond a mile's range, and not live long enough
to propagate. What heteros get infected along with case, will be
considered expendable collateral. (And why are they living so close to
queers, anyway?)
---begin article
FLESH-EATING MAGGOTS ATTACK U.S.
Matt Welch: Tabloid News Services
http://www.tabloid.net/1998/08/10/screwworm_980810.html
[Aug. 10, 1998] -- An Alabama tourist returning from Brazil brought
home a disgusting little souvenir hidden in his flesh: killer maggots
that have been known to eat an entire 600-pound bull in five days.
The man, who has not been identified, came back July 31 with
flesh-eating screw-worm maggots on his scalp, the Associated Press
reported Sunday. Doctors believe the eggs were laid in an open
head-wound while the man was in the Brazilian rain forest, where
the filthy fly thrives.
Although the man has been successfully treated, officials fear that
some of the maggots might have escaped his house and landed in
nearby soil, where they could become flies within a few days and
then mate. Health officials fear that the re-introduction of the
deadly screw-worm fly (Chrysomya bezziana), which was "eradicated" in
America in the 1970s, could wipe out cows, goats and even humans.
"We are taking every appropriate measure to prevent the larvae from
spreading," Chris Bishop, a veterinarian with the Alabama
agriculture department, told the AP.
'Literally Eaten Alive'
The screw-worm fly is about twice the size of typical house fly, but
its appetite more resembles the common vampire. Indigenous to the
warm, wet regions of the U.S., Mexico and Central America, the
adult female screws are attracted to "wounds and orifices of
warm-blooded animals, including human beings, and invade cuts,
castration wounds, newborns' navels and tick bites," reported The
Independent of London.
Each fly lays around 200 eggs on the edge of the wound. The fresh
maggots fatten up for five days, then burrow head-first into the
flesh. The feeding frenzy creates a disgusting stench, which in turn
attracts other flies and undesirables to the victim.
"The infested animals cannot readily dislodge the larvae by licking or
biting," specialist E.F. Knipling wrote. "Animals are literally eaten
alive. In areas of high fly densities, infested animals not found are
virtually doomed for a slow traumatic death."
When given the chance, the screw-worm fly "frequently attacks
man," scientist Leland Howard told the Buffalo News. "The most
common cases are those where the fly has laid its eggs in the
nostrils."
Epidemic Proportions
The United States successfully wiped out most screw-worm fly
populations in the Americas by mating it with sterile males,
producing eggs that did not hatch. Worldwide population was limited
to deep rain forests, and countries like Papua New Guinea.
But in 1989, the fly mysteriously re-emerged in the more dry
confines of Libya, which at the time was America's most hated
enemy. The flies spread sporadically throughout the Middle East,
and this year they have devastated the U.S.' latest pariah of choice:
Iraq.
At least 40 Iraqis have been devoured by the evil maggots,
according to a new report by the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization. Twelve of the country's 18 provinces have
been hit, with livestock losses reaching 50 percent or more.
"Iraq is the latest victim in what appears to be a deliberate
introduction of the screw-worm as a biological weapon," charged
George Pumphrey, a biological warfare specialist based in
Germany, according to The Independent. "In Libya ... 2,000 animals
were killed. It was exemplarily combated, yet by the following year it
covered 35,000 square kilometers, and killed 12,000 heads of
stock."
More than 57,000 cases of screw-worm had been found in Iraq by
March of this year, according to the Financial Times. The UN says
the infestations have reached "epidemic proportions," and could
threaten the whole region.
"This literally constitutes an explosion," wrote UNFAO agronomist
Henning Steinfeld. "Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria are seriously
threatened. To a lesser extent are Bahrain, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey,
the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon."
The Nixon Connection
Perhaps because of its name, perhaps because of its suspicious
appearances in enemy countries, the screw-worm fly has taken an
unusually prominent role in U.S. political debate. On July 31 -- the
day the Alabama man brought maggots home from Brazil -- the
House of Representatives invoked the insect in a discussion about
science funding.
"I remember when we first started debating this subject of research
grant titles, one popular target was a grant titled 'The sex life of
the screw worm,'" said Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.). "But actually, as
we pointed out many times, this innocuous piece of research has
saved the cattle industry of Texas hundreds of times over what the
cost of the actual research was."
In 1990 George Bush gave "the most significant licensing activity"
waiver to bypass Libya sanctions to U.S. scientists who assisted the
UNFAO in its screw-worm eradication there.
But it was Richard Nixon himself who was fixated on the screw
worm, according to Edward Jay Epstein's book "Agency of Fear:
Opiates and Political Power in America."
According to memos written by administration official Egil Krogh, Jr.,
Nixon became consumed with "an insect which could consume
poppy crops."
"The President became excited about the idea and called Secretary
of Agriculture [Hardin] in order to get information on the insect
which he had heard to be bred in such a way as to insure its own
destruction ... The president remarked that the insect died after
intercourse. A member of the group suggested that this insect be
called 'the screw worm.'"
The president wanted Edward Land, the founder and developer of
the Polaroid camera, and William Lear, the founder of Lear Jets,
"brought in to help develop this concept." One week later, on June
17, 1971, Nixon asked Congress for a special supplementary
line-item for the war on heroin that would give "two million dollars
to the Department of Agriculture for research and development of
herbicides which can be used to destroy growths of
narcotics-producing plants without adverse ecological effects."
With NASA and the private sector all chipping in, "the Department of
Agriculture actually created a voracious screw worm that would
rapidly proliferate and destroy any poppy field in the world," Epstein
writes. A plan was drafted to introduce the worm to Laos and
Pakistan, from where it would soon spread to Burma and
Afghanistan, and "be expected to destroy the world's poppy crops
within a year."
But administration officials were worried that the worm's appetite
might switch to rice and grain, so "the screw worm was relegated to
a long-term experimental program which would be made operational
only if it produced a categorically host-specific weevil that would
also stop at international borders."
---end article
What I'd like to know: is there some sort of home remedy to prevent,
and/or remove, these maggots? No doubt gay communities will likely
be attacked in ways such as this.
I'd like to think I live too far north for these tropical creepies to
live (same goes for killer bees)...however, what with global warming,
I wonder.
Of course, what goes around, comes around...and churches stick out
like sore thumbs.
I suggest we educate ourselves further re. biological warfare...by
reviewing Tom Keske's essay on this matter. His home page is:
http://members.xoom.com/trkeske/
Select link "GERM WARFARE". Most of you are familiar with Tom's
articles on Usenet. For any who aren't: Tom is a gay activist, doing
much research on behalf of warning, and educating, our community.
Please read, download, and disseminate. It is possible all gay sites
will be shut down before this year is out.
Sorry for sounding paranoid, but...well, something ugly just happened
to our gay mecca's main newspaper:
http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
Krahlin) wrote:
>The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
>to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
The anti-gay ad published in the S.F. Examiner may now be viewed at:
http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad.htm
I just scanned it tonight, and placed it on one of my web pages.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Krahlin) wrote:
>I like you tactics suggested. However, we should still picket the
>Examiner, to donate the entire $35,000 to the gay community.
In fact, I think it should all go to our own lesbian/gay homeless,
poor, and disabled.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>I also live in the SF Area, and have begun to be dismayed at the "gay
>community" and its total lack of activism.
Everything you said about our gay community in S.F. is right on, Eric.
This is what I have been criticizing all along...for it also applies
to our Amerikan queer community at large. Since you said it all so
well, I will leave it at that. I would like to include your excellent
article on my web site, along with those of others that have impressed
me.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Krahlin) wrote:
>I like you tactics suggested. However, we should still picket the
>Examiner, to donate the entire $35,000 to the gay community.
The anti-gay ad published in the S.F. Examiner may now be viewed at:
http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad.htm
I just scanned it tonight, and placed it on one of my web pages.
George Spelvin
> Now's a good time to test whether or not your hetero associates are
> really gay-friendly. Don't be assuaged by their claims, "What a
> shame!" Let's see 'em put their money where their mouth is. If I were
> hetero, and cared about my gay friends, I'd be walking in shame
> now...and would put away my public displays of het affection, for the
> sake of their freedom, and respect that Amerika still denies us gays.
Not all heterosexuals engage in public displays of affection.
Furthermore, I would never deny homosexuals the right to engage in
public displays of affection. I have been to San Francisco many times
and witnessed gay public displays of affection. It doesn't happen
throughout the country, but you cannot condemn all heterosexuals because
there are people who would object to such behavior.
> I think we should have our own interviewers, walking up to straight
> couples in gay neighborhoods, and ask them why they feel it's okay to
> display their affections in public in gay areas, when gays can't do
> the same in their straight neighborhoods and hangout.
But you would be harrassing people who might have no disagreement with
you. First of all, how does one distinguish between a gay neighborhood
and a straight neighborhood? Are there signs that dictate behavior? If
you really want to make your point, go to straight neighborhoods and
engage in public displays of affection. Don't whine because heteros do
it in front of you . . . get out and do it yourself.
> We should ask
> them why they smooch in our bars and clubs, yet don't let us do the
> same in theirs.
How many heterosexuals go to gay bars and then deny homosexuals in a
straight bar? If someone goes to a gay bar, they're probably not
bothered by gay behavior.
> I think would should declare a "Hetero Shame Week", immediately
> following "Gay Pride Week". That is...if we don't all get rounded up
> first, and tortured in laboratory experiments, or made into wallets
> and lamps.
Sure. That's the way to go. Alienate those who are on your side.
Not being gay, I can't say I understand how you feel. But you can't
start treating your friends, or potential friends, like enemies.
>
> ---
> Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
> A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
> for the challenge!
zoe wilfong
>
> Again, in chat, I made mention of the disparity in laws concerning gay
> relationships/straight marriages.... tax benefits, inheritance,
> purchasing of communal property. The response of "what difference does
> that make," from people whose profiles claimed they had lovers,
> depressed me to no end.
>
> When I mentioned the recent court decision that a gay male couple
> could not be the custodial parent of their own children, solely
> because they are a gay male couple, and the response of "who wants the
> little rug rats around anyway?" irritated the hell out of me.
>
> In SF, complacency has settled in, it seems. When the Castro becomes
> open ground again for police sweeps - as I'm sure it will be should
> the current (somewhat) liberal mayor, Willie Brown, be replaced by a
> conservative Republican who abolishes the DP laws in order to
> requalify for Federal funding - I just hope it's not too late for
> those guys to wake up, smell the coffee, and pray it's not decaf.
>
> Eric Seright-Payne
> Livermore, CA
I too am a bit upset with the complancency and desire to 'go along' and
'not rock the boat' of a lot of gays. It's almost like they don't
believe they *deserve* real equality with straights. When I think about
the crap that gay activists went through over the past half-century or
so just to get us where we are today, it makes me feel like there isn't
much excuse for the current crop of weak-willed accomodationist gays.
Btw, you people who live in the SF area probably don't know how lucky
you are. Just saw Willie Brown on abc this morning about the federal
funding flap, and he is obviously light years more gay-friendly than the
leaders of most other cities (major and minor) in this country.
Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go.
zoe
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:34:58 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com
>> (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>
>>I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
>>of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
>>religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
>
>
>Good. The SF Examiner should profit from these dumbshits. C'mon, people -
>there's NO NEWS HERE. Religious Fundamentalists hate gay people, and
>refuse to admit the legitimacy of our sexual orientation(s). Is that news
>to anybody? If so, you must've spent the greater part of your existence
>locked in a wicker basket.
>
>I think it's AWESOME that all these nutjob extremist groups are gonna
>waste so much money printing this crap in SF. I also think it's awesome
>that they include so many TOLL-FREE numbers in the ads. Hey y'all-
>somebody needs to design and print and DISTRIBUTE a flyer saying something
>to the effect of:
>
>"Bored while waiting for the bus? Well, throw off the chains of
>Slow-Transit Ennui! Walk to the nearest payphone and dial one of the
>numbers listed below. The call won't cost YOU a cent, but it WILL cost The
>Religious Nutjobs Who Put That Silly-Assed Ad In The Examiner some cash!
>Keep them on the line until the bus/train/trick arrives! Call them while
>waiting in line over at Welcome Homo before brunch on Saturday! REMEMBER-
>the LONGER you keep them on the line, THE MORE MONEY THEY LOSE!"
>
>Then, pop it on a ZIP, go to Kinko's, and go apeshit posting them all over
>the Castro!
>
I did just that here in Honolulu and "Homsexuals Anonymous" was forced
to withdraw their 1-800 service (expensive) to Hawaii.
I have been trying to circulate another --
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aloha Friends --
This is to inform you that there is a nasty business afoot. A cabal
of organizations under various names is circulating ugly propaganda
telling us that God does not love Gays. They suggest, among other
silly things, that "God creates only heterosexuals who sometimes
become .. confused." They further assert that we are wretched sinners
who must be "rescued" from our lives. To this dubious end they are
raising quantities of money and seeking legislation to deny us our
civil rights, our human rights.
Our lives are compared to those of alcoholics and drug addicts. We
are doing evil things and in the canon of this meddlesome outfit are
in need of rescue. I would suggest that we are in need of being left
the hell alone by bigots and hateful homophobes.
Happily they maintain a series of toll-free numbers with which to
rescue us. Calls to these numbers are free to the caller but represent
a charge against these malicious folks.
I have set these up as a series of pre-set buttons on my telephone. I
ring them several times a day and am delighted to think that their
ugly voices may be discouraged. I suggest that you find the pleasure
of doing likewise. Let me urge that if you do join this effort you
offer only words of polite and reasonable disparagement. The people
who answer the phones are sincere in their faulty thinking. If we
scream into the phone it will only reinforce their nasty delusions
about us. Who knows, we may rescue a homophobe.
It is pleasant indeed to ease one's mind and subtract a little money
from the coffers of the enemy at the same time.
The voices on the phone will press for your name and address, do not
be afraid to give it to them -- this will produce a torrent of
EXPENSIVE junk mail - there will be plenty of return envelopes with
exhortations for money. Send them back filled with whatever is at
hand and a little more postage will be extracted from their coffers.
The more the envelope weighs, the more postage the organization has to
pay.
Enjoy!
Uncle Fudge
American Family 1-800-326-4543
Reclaiming America
1-877-468-7884
Christian Coalition 1*800-325-4746
Concerned Women for America
1-800-458-8797
Coral Ridge Ministries
1-877-468-7884
Focus on the Family
1-800-232 6459
Kerusso Ministries 1-800-584-5630
Liberty Counsel 1-800-671-1776
The "Ex Homosexual Movement" 1-888-264-0877
>
>
>Allen James
***************************************************
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is
NOTHING like Shakespeare."
--Blair Houghton
***************************************************
Ward Stewart
>In article <6r49c6$9o8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> cub...@cjnetworks.com wrote:
>
>> Nowhere in the US is more gay-friendly than SF. You would have to travel to
>> Amsterdam to surpass SF.
>>
>> I suspect that there is a certain element of complaining about the place you
>> live (a common patime for anyone) at work here.
>
>A close friend of mine,who visited San Francisco back in july 1985,brought
>back a bad impression of it.He rated it as below the kind of gay environment
>and social gay life he had in Montreal.While he travelled to several
>countries and places in the following years,he never went back to SF.
Let's get this straight -- ONE friend of yours (presumably not Zeke)
visited San Francisco THIRTEEN YEARS AGO and was not pleased.
Well -- STOP THE PRESSES --!!!
ward
Fred
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
>
> So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
> history for the greatest betrayal to its own people. We have also
> recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
> than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
> consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
>
> I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
> its gay population. Now, I see my suspicions confirmed: just more
> phony liberals stabbing us in the back, while they smile in our faces.
>
> I do hope that, somehow, the S.F. Examiner back off...but supposedly,
> the ad will be out for this Sunday's edition. Well! The "Sunday
> Edition" is actually a composite of our two major newspapers: the
> Examiner, and the Chronicle...so they are both implicit.
>
> Go to their "S.F. Gate" web site at:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/
>
> Or their staff page at:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/staff/
>
> Where you'll have phone numbers and e-mails to complain.
>
> Or you can send your feedback directly to this e-mail:
>
> let...@examiner.com
>
> ---
> Q. How many heteros does it take to screw in a light bulb?
> A. I don't know, they're still trying to breed enough brains
> for the challenge!
> ---
> My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
> http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
Don't be so judgmental. They took the ad because they believe in free
speech and freedom of the press. If they rejected it, they would no
better than the stations that refused Ellen's coming out or those papers
that refuse to print gay news.
The paper has even put an editorial in saying they disagree with the ad.
The editorial says the ad "represents a perversion of Christian ideal."
It actually looks they took the money, ran the ad, and then used the
opportunity to educate.
--
"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions..." -
Thomas Jefferson
Fred
> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:33:25 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
> Krahlin) wrote:
>
> >The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
> >to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
>
> The anti-gay ad published in the S.F. Examiner may now be viewed at:
>
> http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad.htm
>
> I just scanned it tonight, and placed it on one of my web pages.
>
> ---
> Q. If you had a hetero over for
> dinner what would you feed him?
> A. Leftover dog food.
> ---
> My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
> http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
Will you also be kind enough to post the paper's editorial on the ad as
well?
Thank you.
Fred
Eric Seright-Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:23:21 GMT, cub...@cjnetworks.com wrote:
>
> >In article <35D51E...@SpamSux.laserfx.com>,
> > News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> I also live in the SF Area, and have begun to be dismayed at the "gay
> community" and its total lack of activism. Just yesterday, I was in an
> AOL chat room, speaking with another SFer about this - I should note
> that on AOL my account name is my REAL name - and I got a little bent
> out of shape at all the closet cases who, according to their profile,
> were unmarried and gay... but refused to put even a first name in
> their profile, instead hiding behind such names as ISCKDCK or some
> other such idiocy.
>
AOL is gem of a place. Nobody is who they seem to be.
> Suddenly, one person, very publicly asked why I was in the room, if I
> was married, and did my "wife" know I was gay.
>
> I responded with, "Don't have a wife, have a husband." Suddenly, that
> same person was jumping down my throat for being an "Uncle Tom," and
> emulating "them." In the course of our conversation, I revealed that I
> give as good as I get, and that in a recent bashing attempt, while I
> was in Atlantic City, the teenage punk who tried to start shit got a
> big surprise when the "sissy fag" knocked out a few of his front teeth
> and dislocated his jaw.
>
While I don't like the word "married" and won't use it because we are considered
second class citizens and are being denied that right, I do like your response to
the "punk".
Waht apalls me is that one or two jerks can attack a gay man in a group and no
one does anything. Don't the guys who go to the gym know how to use there
muscles?
> The closet case again jumped on me for "perpetuating violence."
> What really got me, though, was the number of men in the room who
> AGREED with him. As one who remembers what the Stonewall and White
> Night riots meant to me - a glimmer that maybe, someday, we'd NOT be
> looked upon as some group of perverts out searching dark alleways,
> seedy bars and bathhouses for cock, but would be taken seriously as
> people - it really pissed me off the sheer number of persons, located
> in the SF Area, who had slithered back to a life of "going to work,
> coming home, after the sun sets, hit the bars, and if lucky, get
> laid."
> Surprisingly, for every Jon Katz (one of the few QNers left), there's
> tens - if not hundreds - of guys who have grown so accustomed to the
> "freeness" of San Francisco, they're missing the political climate
> that's growing around them.
>
> Again, in chat, I made mention of the disparity in laws concerning gay
> relationships/straight marriages.... tax benefits, inheritance,
> purchasing of communal property. The response of "what difference does
> that make," from people whose profiles claimed they had lovers,
> depressed me to no end.
> When I mentioned the recent court decision that a gay male couple
> could not be the custodial parent of their own children, solely
> because they are a gay male couple, and the response of "who wants the
> little rug rats around anyway?" irritated the hell out of me.
>
> In SF, complacency has settled in, it seems. When the Castro becomes
> open ground again for police sweeps - as I'm sure it will be should
> the current (somewhat) liberal mayor, Willie Brown, be replaced by a
> conservative Republican who abolishes the DP laws in order to
> requalify for Federal funding - I just hope it's not too late for
> those guys to wake up, smell the coffee, and pray it's not decaf.
>
> Eric Seright-Payne
> Livermore, CA
"Will it take a Civil war to get our Civil rights?" -- Fred Kilby
dr...@ccsf.cc.ca.us
Spee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:34:58 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com
> (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>
> >I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
> >of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
> >religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
> >
> It's not all that it appears to be. If it was only me involved,
> I would have left here long ago. Wish it was that easy.
>
What you and so many other people think, that San Francisco is a Gay
Mecca, is just not so. San Francisco is a Gay Refugee center. It's not
someplace that people go to, as much as it is a place that people
arrive from someplace else.
J. Northwood
than because it pisses the Cherry boy off. >
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:42:17 GMT, Fred <FAK...@Home.com> wrote:
>Will you also be kind enough to post the paper's editorial on the ad as
>well?
>Thank you.
*tsk*
Fred, you're asking for honesty from ZekeSix. If you've got the
editorial, please send it to me and I'll scan it and post it. If the
ZekeSix was really interested in presenting the facts, it would have
done so earlier.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:33:25 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
> > Krahlin) wrote:
> >
> > >The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is: It's their right
> > >to free speech, as much as we may abhor it.
> >
> > The anti-gay ad published in the S.F. Examiner may now be viewed at:
> >
> > http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad.htm
> >
> > I just scanned it tonight, and placed it on one of my web pages.
Zeke, much as I disagree with 99% of what you say, and I am appauled at
your bigotary, I did want to thank you for posting this scan of the ad
[even though there were very dark parts I could not read]. As a
Canadian, I have not had a cnance to see these ads for myself before so
thanks for posting one.
In the ad, theese groups ask for an 'honest debate' so lets give it to
them. Surely we can find a large auditorium somewhere, hire a well
known journalist or anchor-person to be a neutral moderator [Jim Leher
come to mind] and have a panel of 4 from the ad proponests and 4 from
the gay commuinty.
The event could be financed by ticket sales and I bet a community cable
company would jump at the chance to tape it for the benifit of those who
could not be present in person. I could even talk to my contacts in the
industry and see if they would be interested in staging such an event
here in Canada. Let's give them the debate they want and reveal the
vacancy of thier ideas and position!
Donald C. Broyles
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Let's get this straight --
I don't think so.
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
Ezekiel Krahlin
<zcw...@silver.sdsmt.edu> wrote:
>I too am a bit upset with the complancency and desire to 'go along' and
>'not rock the boat' of a lot of gays.
I'm very upset.
>It's almost like they don't
>believe they *deserve* real equality with straights.
Exactly. When I bring up the anti-gay ad to my gay brothers in S.F.,
they almost always say the same thing: "Well it is free speech". They
seem not offended in the least. Just a dumb smile on their face. What
accommodating sheep!
>Btw, you people who live in the SF area probably don't know how lucky
>you are. Just saw Willie Brown on abc this morning about the federal
>funding flap, and he is obviously light years more gay-friendly than the
>leaders of most other cities (major and minor) in this country.
He's not gay friendly...he uses them to develop his own power base.
Just like the rest of our phony hetero liberals.
>Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go.
Sisyphus constantly reminded himself of that.
I was just informed of one Camille Paglia...who is a very homophobic
spokesperson...though claims to be atheist and lesbian. She is indeed
wicked, and yet another person in powerful position who is on a
crusade to eliminate gays. Here's here comments about anti-gay ads:
http://www.salonmagazine.com/col/pagl/
Ezekiel Krahlin
printing the ugly anti-gay ad! Now, they portray themselves as the
holy defenders of free speech...acting as if this is an invitation for
debate. Nothing needs debating here...plain wrong is plain wrong. If
debate is necessary, it can be done just as easily without printing
this nasty ad. Read on:
EDITORIAL REGARDING THEIR PUBLICATION OF AN ANTI-GAY AD, FROM THE S.F.
EXAMINER/CHRONICLE OF AUGUST 16, 1998, PAGE D-8:
'HEALING' & HALLUCINATIONS
An advertisement telling gays they can change stirs up debate, But the
message could hoomerang against the 'Christian' sponsors.
SOME PEOPLE want to squelch viewpoints with which they strongly
disagree. As a newspaper, The Examiner defends a very different value.
The position we fight for daily is:
Let a thousand voices be heard. That's the guiding philosophy behind
publication elsewhere in this edition of an advertisement that
promotes the idea of homosexual "healing." It is headlined, "We're
standing for the truth that homosexuals can change."
As individuals, many of us at the newspaper find the views expressed
in this ad abhorrent. The Examiner's editorial position is that the ad
- sponsored by a coalition of Christian groups - represents a
perversion of Christian ideals.
Where, for example, is the notion of Christian charity in the ad's
brutish recitation of the "sins" of gay people? Where is the principle
of Christian brotherhood in the ad's maligning of the feelings and
values of gay people?
The ad suggests the most barbaric of stereotypes about gays. That God
is wreaking punishment on them, through gonorrhea, hepatitis and other
sexually transmitted diseases, for their moral choices. That being gay
is a "sexual sin" which can easily be wiped away by inducing gays to
find and accept their latent heterosexuality. That gays are made gay
by "rejection from early childhood and lack of bonding to same-sex
parents, sexual violence and rape, or mental and emotional abuse."
The saving grace is that, in San Francisco, such Neanderthalisms will
evoke a collective hoot. But there are perceived dangers, too: That
ads such as this will encourage ostracism of and violence against
gays. That such ads actually destroy Christian values. That such ads
c:reate an added psychological burden for gays and lesbians who have
already suffered too much abuse in a hostile, or indifferent,
mainstream society.
But the answer to bigotry is never to slam the door on free speech.
The remedy is more free speech. The views expressed in this ad - which
has also run in other major newspapers - are no doubt genuinely held
by its sponsors. That's the scary part, not that they are able to
bring those views out of the closet and into print.
Truth is reached by exposing wrong-headed opinions, arguing with the
perpetrators and exposing the fallacies of their positions. Sunlight
truly is the best disinfectant - even for homophobia. Look at Reggie
White, the towering defensive lineman for the Green Bay Packers, who
is featured in another of the religious coalition's anti-gay ads. His
potential career as a TV commentator was ruined by his public
utterances against gays, and his team reprimanded him for wearing his
uniform while proselytizing.
The ad in today's Examiner shows a smilng flock of 850 "former
homosexuals" who gathered at a Seattle meeting of Exodus, identified
as a nationwide ex-gay niinistry, Two of them, John and Anne Paulk,
now a married couple, also appear on the cover of this week's Newsweek
magazine. You can read their story there.
The other 848 individuals surely have their own stories to tell. No
doubt each one is different. That individuality reminds us of another
Christian teaching: That each individual contains a divine spirit
within. No one, certainly no Christian, would want to violate that by
lumping individuals together in a class of "sinners."
As much as the views expressed in today's ad disturb us, it would
bother us more to see them suppressed. Giving exposure to quackery
doesn't mean anyone buys it. Readers with open minds will weigh what
is said, measure it against other evidence and make up their own
minds. We invite you tojoin the debate.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:
> Zeke, much as I disagree with 99% of what you say, and I am appauled at
>your bigotary, I did want to thank you for posting this scan of the ad
>[even though there were very dark parts I could not read].
They are clear on my screen. I can't accommodate the picture to all
screens. Perhaps you can make some sort of adjustment at your end?
> In the ad, theese groups ask for an 'honest debate' so lets give it to
>them. Surely we can find a large auditorium somewhere, hire a well
>known journalist or anchor-person to be a neutral moderator [Jim Leher
>come to mind] and have a panel of 4 from the ad proponests and 4 from
>the gay commuinty.
They don't want honest debate. Their ad is sinister and reeking of
violence against gays. It is a declaration of war upon homosexuals. In
print, they are accusing gays of spreading disease and perversion,
with abnormally high rates of depression, alcohol and hard drug abuse,
and a threat to society. They would kill us off with "love".
The S.F. Examiner smugly claims to be upholding free speech, by not
refusing to print the ad. How big of them! If they were telling the
truth, they'd have already arranged to hand over the $35,000 to the
gay community. Even so, the damage has already been done. We are full
steam ahead for holocaust.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<c66...@showme.missouri.eduNOSPAM> wrote:
>But you would be harrassing people who might have no disagreement with
>you. First of all, how does one distinguish between a gay neighborhood
>and a straight neighborhood?
They alread exist, and are socially excepted as gay neighborhoods.
>Are there signs that dictate behavior?
For Hetero Shame Week, there would be signs put up. I propose it for
the entire city of San Francisco, the "gay mecca".
>If you really want to make your point, go to straight neighborhoods and
>engage in public displays of affection.
It goes both ways. It is tacitly accepted as verboten to do so. I'b be
for turning the tables by arresting heteros in gay areas.
>Don't whine because heteros do
>it in front of you . . . get out and do it yourself.
I wouldn't impose myself on anyone who is not mutually attracted.
Besides, that's neither the point, nor am I whining. You just pretend
heteros are all such nice people. They are certainly not. And many who
are not part of the religious right, are nevertheless virulently
homophobic.
>
>How many heterosexuals go to gay bars and then deny homosexuals in a
>straight bar? If someone goes to a gay bar, they're probably not
>bothered by gay behavior.
Plenty of times, smart-ass hetero couples get their sick jollies by
intentionally petting and gropping in gay bars...knowing full well
that is offensive. But since God is on their side, they are very
arrogant about it. You are not so naive...you are an intentional
saboteur of gay civil rights.
>> I think would should declare a "Hetero Shame Week", immediately
>> following "Gay Pride Week". That is...if we don't all get rounded up
>> first, and tortured in laboratory experiments, or made into wallets
>> and lamps.
>
>Sure. That's the way to go. Alienate those who are on your side.
Real supporters of gay rights (who are hetero) would be all for it,
and have no problem complying with that law for one week. Good grief,
they always have a lot of private places to go to, to smooch. Also,
pro-gay straights with money, would gladly smooch in order to get
arrested and pay the fine. If they don't really want to go to jail,
they could instead pay three times the usual fine: $1500. It would be
like going to one of those fancy $1,000 dinner-plate fund raisers.
>Not being gay, I can't say I understand how you feel. But you can't
>start treating your friends, or potential friends, like enemies.
Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
friends would be all for it.
George Spelvin
> >Are there signs that dictate behavior?
>
> For Hetero Shame Week, there would be signs put up. I propose it for
> the entire city of San Francisco, the "gay mecca".
San Francisco is not the gay mecca, but a city whose population, for the
most part, is in favor of policies inclusive of straight and gay people.
> >If you really want to make your point, go to straight neighborhoods and
> >engage in public displays of affection.
>
> It goes both ways. It is tacitly accepted as verboten to do so. I'b be
> for turning the tables by arresting heteros in gay areas.
But what you propose is unconstitutional and ludicrous. Rather than
limit people's civil rights, do things to advocate protecting the civil
rights of those whose rights are impinged.
> >Don't whine because heteros do
> >it in front of you . . . get out and do it yourself.
>
> I wouldn't impose myself on anyone who is not mutually attracted.
> Besides, that's neither the point, nor am I whining. You just pretend
> heteros are all such nice people. They are certainly not. And many who
> are not part of the religious right, are nevertheless virulently
> homophobic.
I meant with your lover (and not just you, but any gay couple).
I do not pretend that all heteros are nice people. I am very aware of
the multitude of homophobes and Christian persecutors. But your idea
would not attack them, rather it would be aimed at all heterosexuals.
> >How many heterosexuals go to gay bars and then deny homosexuals in a
> >straight bar? If someone goes to a gay bar, they're probably not
> >bothered by gay behavior.
>
> Plenty of times, smart-ass hetero couples get their sick jollies by
> intentionally petting and gropping in gay bars...knowing full well
> that is offensive. But since God is on their side, they are very
> arrogant about it. You are not so naive...you are an intentional
> saboteur of gay civil rights.
Hetero couples groping in a gay bar in order to piss people off is
wrong, but not all heterosexuals behave this way. Further, why should
it be offensive instead of infuriating.
And I am not an intentional saboteur of gay civil rights. I am strongly
in favor of civil rights for EVERYONE. You don't establish gay civil
rights by eliminating the civil rights of those who are not gay.
> Real supporters of gay rights (who are hetero) would be all for it,
> and have no problem complying with that law for one week.
Bullshit. Don't try that argument. There are many REAL SUPPORTERS OF
GAY RIGHTS who would not agree to the supression of their civil rights
for a week.
> >Not being gay, I can't say I understand how you feel. But you can't
> >start treating your friends, or potential friends, like enemies.
>
> Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
> friends would be all for it.
Ignorant logic.
bil...@pacbell.net
> The event could be financed by ticket sales and I bet a community cable
> company would jump at the chance to tape it for the benifit of those who
> could not be present in person. I could even talk to my contacts in the
> industry and see if they would be interested in staging such an event
> here in Canada. Let's give them the debate they want and reveal the
> vacancy of thier ideas and position!
>
> +====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
> This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
> Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
> +==================================================================+
>
This would be a great idea to have such an event in Canada. Then if PBS in
the U S would broadcast. I would love to see Canada become the Geneva for
the North America gay world. Bill Long
--
As I get older and older
and totter toward the tomb,
I care less and less
Who goes to bed with wh
*The* Didaskalos
alt.politics.homosexuality:
== I have just heard over the radio, than the San Francisco Examiner--one
== of the major newspapers of northern California--has accepted from the
== religious right, an ad for "curing" gays, for the price of $35,000.
==
== So much for the marvelous "gay mecca". San Francisco shall go down in
== history for the greatest betrayal to its own people. We have also
== recently suffered gay bashers and murderers getting off with no worse
== than probation...including where one judge blamed the murderous
== consequences of a drunk homophobe on "bad alcohol".
==
In the Bible (St. Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians) is says that
the Jews killed Christ. St. Paul says it, and it's very, very clear
and unambiguous.
I wonder if this newspaper would accept an advertisement from a group
quoting the Bible and saying that the Jews killed Christ?
Are they motivated by "free speech" or corporate homophobia in
choosing which ads to print and which ads not to print?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our thought for the day, a lesson from history:
"All members of the SS and police must be in the forefront of
the fight to eliminate homosexuality from the German people."
-- Heinrich Himmler, March 7, 1942 Memorandum.
(Imperial War Museum, London, H/6/165)
Are you a political or religious Conservative?
Remember this: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<c66...@showme.missouri.eduNOSPAM> wrote:
>> For Hetero Shame Week, there would be signs put up. I propose it for
>> the entire city of San Francisco, the "gay mecca".
>
>San Francisco is not the gay mecca, but a city whose population, for the
>most part, is in favor of policies inclusive of straight and gay people.
Untrue. It remains the political epicenter of gay rights in the United
States, and the world. As shabby as it is these days, what with all
the attacks by the right wing, AIDS, and the masses of unsupportive
heteros who insist they are nonetheless "liberal". Who move in and
take over our neighborhoods that we gays have made clean and
safe...push us out...and do nothing to support or defend our civil
rights.
>> It goes both ways. It is tacitly accepted as verboten to do so. I'b be
>> for turning the tables by arresting heteros in gay areas.
>
>But what you propose is unconstitutional and ludicrous. Rather than
>limit people's civil rights, do things to advocate protecting the civil
>rights of those whose rights are impinged.
What I propose is an action of civil disobedience. Technically, all
acts of civil dissent--even peaceful--are "illegal". Throwing tea into
the Boston harbor was illegal...in the eyes of King George.
>I am very aware of
>the multitude of homophobes and Christian persecutors. But your idea
>would not attack them, rather it would be aimed at all heterosexuals.
So what. Any heteros that care about gay rights, would gladly refrain
from public displays of affection, for the week of Hetero Shame. If
they don't...well, what does that tell ya? It would be a statement
that would impact our entire society...a most effective form of civil
dissent that is totally non-violent.
The purpose of Hetero Shame is mainly to address the silence of the
hetero majority that claims to not be allied with the religious
right...yet in their silence, they give sanction. They do nothing to
speak out against homophobia, nor anything to support gay rights. If
this were not true, we'd find many more gay-supportive posters and
announcements in hangouts set aside for our "liberal" heterosexual
populace (which places indeed *do provide a voice against racism,
child abuse, and women's rights). Instead, there's barely a peep of
protest against gay hatred.
Outside of PFLAG, I know of know all-hetero political-activist groups
dedicated to gay rights. Yet there are plenty of heteros covering all
other issues of civil rights...including whites defending blacks, and
men defending women. Something is very wrong here, and must be
addressed, and changed.
>Hetero couples groping in a gay bar in order to piss people off is
>wrong, but not all heterosexuals behave this way.
It is legal for them to do so...yet not legal for gays to do same. We
get bashed if we even try. Stop being an apologist for hetero
superiority fanaticism that is constantly shoved into our faces, even
in our own gay neighborhoods.
>Further, why should it be offensive instead of infuriating.
It is *both.
>in favor of civil rights for EVERYONE.
Unfortunately, soothsayers claiming "civil rights for everyone",
always leave out the gay contingent. This is what I am addressing, in
a number of ways. Almost every "radical" book store I've walked into,
does not include a shelf for gay-rights material. Yet they'll
represent all other civil rights issues, at least a shelf-full for:
blacks, women, children, ecology, Latinos, etc. And we're talking of
the "liberal" San Francisco Bay Area! I mean, what is their problem?
(The answer, of course, is "homophobia".)
>You don't establish gay civil
>rights by eliminating the civil rights of those who are not gay.
There would be no elimination of others' rights. There would, however,
be a short period of time when gays get to arrest heteros for doing
the same things that often get gays put in jail...and worse!
Arresting/fining heteros for one week...versus gays getting viciously
bashed, imprisoned for years, and murdered. I'm sorry, but civil
rights for gays are non-existant...yet you are accusing me of denying
any reasonable and effective dissent that could help staunch all this
bigotry.
You don't establish gay civil rights by catering to homophobic
attitudes.
>> Real supporters of gay rights (who are hetero) would be all for it,
>> and have no problem complying with that law for one week.
>
>Bullshit. Don't try that argument. There are many REAL SUPPORTERS OF
>GAY RIGHTS who would not agree to the supression of their civil rights
>for a week.
It would hardly be a suppression. It would be giving them a taste of
what we suffer through constantly, as gay citizens of Amerika. Again,
the hetero majority remains *silent when the right wing speaks its
terrorist drivel.
For shame, for shame, for *hetero shame!
---
Are we mice or are we men?
Are we gay or Thracian?
criminal
> You are not so naive...you are an intentional
> saboteur of gay civil rights.
I still find this tidbit of name calling to be the single most hilarious
thing Zeke says over and over, merely because it is so outlandishly
incorrect!
> Real supporters of gay rights (who are hetero) would be all for it,
> and have no problem complying with that law for one week.
You really aren't a good judge of people, are you?
> Good grief,
> they always have a lot of private places to go to, to smooch. Also,
> pro-gay straights with money, would gladly smooch in order to get
> arrested and pay the fine.
Sure, sure.... I know thousands of people just waiting to have a
misdemeanor put on their record... or would you prefer it be a felony?
> >Not being gay, I can't say I understand how you feel. But you can't
> >start treating your friends, or potential friends, like enemies.
To Zeke, everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% is an enemy, a
sabateur, a turncoat, and a heterocentrist.
> Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
> friends would be all for it.
Hell, I'M not even all for it, and I am GAY!
Therefore, lets see something.... The HETERO SHAME WEEK POLL!!! (God we
are having fun with this poll things aren't we?)
********************************************************
If you agree that we should hold a HETERO SHAME WEEK in which we lock up
straight people for so much as kissing, sign below:
If you disagree, sign here:
Trent Petrasek
--
Trent Petrasek
wo...@f.i.r.e.w.i.n.d.d.o.t.n.e.t
on EFnet: criminal
Ezekiel Krahlin
thedidaskalosTAKEM...@hotmail.com (*The* Didaskalos)
wrote:
>In the Bible (St. Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians) is says that
>the Jews killed Christ. St. Paul says it, and it's very, very clear
>and unambiguous.
>
>I wonder if this newspaper would accept an advertisement from a group
>quoting the Bible and saying that the Jews killed Christ?
If you read later on from the top of the thread, that is exactly the
question I posed, in my letter to the editor.
>Are they motivated by "free speech" or corporate homophobia in
>choosing which ads to print and which ads not to print?
The answer is obvious.
Bob Quintana
bullshit is to simply let it pass? Yes, the SF Chron was a piece of shit to
take the $30,000 for the ad (I'm a SF resident), but our power has always
been our reluctance to acknowledge the idiocrisy of the Religious Right. As
long as we are here, we will hear from some corners that our lifestyle is
"wrong" and "indecent" Only when we overcome throughout the generations will
it be noticed that it's not worth their time to single us out, because they
won't get a reaction from us!
There's a saying that goes, "Don't stoop to their level." Let's do just
that, and prove that a full-page ad in a major newspaper isn't going to do
JACK SHIT when it comes to living our lives sanely, lovingly, and healthily!
criminal wrote in message <35D940B4...@chaos.firewind.net>...
James Doemer
No, I don't believe that anyone, gay or straight, should be held out for
embarrassment, public ridicule,
or criminal punishment for public displays of affection (hand holding,
kissing, hugging, etc), and that
laws and punishments for non-legal public displays of affection (intercourse
etc...) should be set and
applied equally across all gender orientations.
James Doemer big...@provide.net
John De Salvio
> People, when are you going to realize that the best way to deal with this
> bullshit is to simply let it pass? Yes, the SF Chron was a piece of shit to
> take the $30,000 for the ad (I'm a SF resident),
It was the Examiner, not the Chronicle, and it was $35,000.
>but our power has always
> been our reluctance to acknowledge the idiocrisy of the Religious Right. As
> long as we are here, we will hear from some corners that our lifestyle is
> "wrong" and "indecent" Only when we overcome throughout the generations will
> it be noticed that it's not worth their time to single us out, because they
> won't get a reaction from us!
>
> There's a saying that goes, "Don't stoop to their level." Let's do just
> that, and prove that a full-page ad in a major newspaper isn't going to do
> JACK SHIT when it comes to living our lives sanely, lovingly, and healthily!
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Mike Silverman
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Outside of PFLAG, I know of know all-hetero political-activist groups
> dedicated to gay rights. Yet there are plenty of heteros covering all
> other issues of civil rights...including whites defending blacks, and
> men defending women. Something is very wrong here, and must be
> addressed, and changed.
The ACLU, People For the American Way, GLSEN, Americans United for the
Separation of Church And State, , etc, etc....all of these groups place
gay rights as a top-level issue alongside all the other causes they are
for.
And actually GLSEN is primarily dedicated to gay rights in schools.
> Unfortunately, soothsayers claiming "civil rights for everyone",
> always leave out the gay contingent. This is what I am addressing, in
> a number of ways. Almost every "radical" book store I've walked into,
> does not include a shelf for gay-rights material.
And every left-wing book store I've been to has plenty of gay stuff.
> There would be no elimination of others' rights. There would, however,
> be a short period of time when gays get to arrest heteros for doing
> the same things that often get gays put in jail...and worse!
This statement gets clipped and goes in the permanent archives.
Read what you just said.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
George M. Carter
snip...
>Let a thousand voices be heard.
That should read "Let a thousand affluent, paying voices be heard."
George M. Carter
Bob Quintana
a weekend, when the two papers are combined!
John De Salvio wrote in message ...
Martron
>>Therefore, lets see something.... The HETERO SHAME WEEK POLL!!! (God we
>>are having fun with this poll things aren't we?)
>>
>>********************************************************
>>
>>If you agree that we should hold a HETERO SHAME WEEK in which we lock up
>>straight people for so much as kissing, sign below:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>If you disagree, sign here:
>>
Martron
John De Salvio
> It's a moot point as to whether it was the Chron/Examiner, as it appeared on
> a weekend, when the two papers are combined!
It's not a moot point, because there are distinctly different sections for
JUST the Chronicle and JUST the Examiner. The Chronicle refused the ad,
the Examiner did not. The Examiner explained (to my satisfaction -- I also
run newspapers) why it accepted the ad. It also editorially criticized the
advertiser in its editorial page.
The ads are placed for both newspapers by the San Francisco Newspaper
Agency. The Chronicle made a point of not allowing it to run in their sections.
Magenta
(Mike Silverman) doth speak:
>In article <35d92af2...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>,
>ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Unfortunately, soothsayers claiming "civil rights for everyone",
>> always leave out the gay contingent. This is what I am addressing, in
>> a number of ways. Almost every "radical" book store I've walked into,
>> does not include a shelf for gay-rights material.
>
>And every left-wing book store I've been to has plenty of gay stuff.
And the regular bookstores too- Barnes & Noble has gay stuff.
As usual, Zekey doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
--
+----- Peace & Love, ----+------- Magenta77 (at) AOL (dot) com ------+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"There are more things in heaven and earth,|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| |...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|_________ _/ __________|_________________--[Hamlet Act I: Scene V]_|
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>> Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
>> friends would be all for it.
>
>Hell, I'M not even all for it, and I am GAY!
You are not gay, in either the political or social sense. You are
heterocentric all the way through, except for your occassional sexual
tryst and fantasy.
>Therefore, lets see something.... The HETERO SHAME WEEK POLL!!! (God we
>are having fun with this poll things aren't we?)
A poll that will only be participated in your tiny clique...thus
satisfying your petty ego. Birds of a feather flock together.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Indeed! That's what it comes down to, if truth be told. I have also
posted today's letters to the editor, from the S.F. Examiner...all
discussing the anti-gay ad:
http://thor.prohosting.com/~ezekielk/sf-ad-l.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
<big...@provide.net> wrote:
>No, I don't believe that anyone, gay or straight, should be held out for
>embarrassment, public ridicule,
Does your hetero vote even count?
The purpose of Hetero Shame is mainly to address the silence of the
hetero majority that claims to not be allied with the religious
right...yet in their silence, they give sanction. They do nothing to
speak out against homophobia, nor anything to support gay rights. If
this were not true, we'd find many more gay-supportive posters and
announcements in hangouts set aside for our "liberal" heterosexual
populace (which places indeed DO provide a voice against racism, child
abuse, and women's rights). Instead, there's barely a peep of protest
against gay hatred.
It has often been shown, that public shame is an effective form of
social sanction, where other methods have failed. The idea of shaming
the hetero majority for its silence, fits in quite well as a likely
effective tactic of civil dissent.
>or criminal punishment for public displays of affection (hand holding,
>kissing, hugging, etc), and that laws and punishments for non-legal
>public displays of affection (intercourse etc...) should be set and
>applied equally across all gender orientations.
Last I looked, there are no laws enforced to give gay people equal
status to heterosexuals...except in a few scattered places here and
there. And even in those few places, the pro-gay laws are weakly
enforced...while the danger of bashing continues unabated, and is just
as bad as anywhere else in Amerika.
This public humiliation upon heteros is nothing compared to the
genocide upon gays that is almost a national sport in the good ol' boy
USofA. It would last a week, and only be put upon those str8s who do
*not respect gay neighborhoods enough to forego public displays of
petting.
Obviously, Doemer, you have a problem with this. I don't wonder why.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>People, when are you going to realize that the best way to deal with this
>bullshit is to simply let it pass? Yes, the SF Chron was a piece of shit to
>take the $30,000 for the ad (I'm a SF resident), but our power has always
>been our reluctance to acknowledge the idiocrisy of the Religious Right.
Jews ignoring the Nazis was a tactic that unfortunately, failed
terribly and tragically. The fact that the religious reich is
attacking San Francisco, and gaining victories...is a call to arms for
gay people. Civil dissent of an aggressive nature is of vital concern
at this point. I only wish ignoring them would make them go away...but
apparantly, this does not work, else they wouldn't have been able to
barge through the gates of gay mecca.
>Only when we overcome throughout the generations will
>it be noticed that it's not worth their time to single us out, because they
>won't get a reaction from us!
There are no voices in crematoriums.
>There's a saying that goes, "Don't stoop to their level."
I hardly think civil dissent with certain theatrical and playful
aspects, is hardly stooping to their level. There's a saying that
goes: "Silence = death".
>Let's do just
>that, and prove that a full-page ad in a major newspaper isn't going to do
>JACK SHIT when it comes to living our lives sanely, lovingly, and healthily!
It's a wake up call, not a "go to sleep" call.
RavensHeart
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:53:32 -0400, "James Doemer"
><big...@provide.net> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't believe that anyone, gay or straight, should be held out for
>>embarrassment, public ridicule,
>
>Does your hetero vote even count?
>
No....No bigotry here.
RavensHeart
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:52:05 -0500, criminal <wo...@chaos.firewind.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
>>> friends would be all for it.
>>
>>Hell, I'M not even all for it, and I am GAY!
>
>You are not gay, in either the political or social sense. You are
>heterocentric all the way through, except for your occassional sexual
>tryst and fantasy.
>
Congratulations. You too have made it into the "you're not gay
because you don't hate ALL heterosxuals" club.
Martin Kirk
<she...@europa.nospam.com> writes
while and it keeps getting more and more loopy. This Gay Country crap.
Jesus. I cannot imagine anything worse. Whatever happened to
appreciating diversity, learning from each other, having the maturity to
accept differences? Be better than the homophobes, be more intelligent,
work for a better world, don't bugger of and shut youself away.
Separatism is a spooky concept, especially when it is born from what
must have been some very traumatic experiences. And all this handing
straight kids over to another country. I've never heard anything so
ridiculous in my life.
Granted, gay men and lesbians have suffered, and continue to suffer
because of homophobia. Answer, run away from society all together? I
hardly think so. Look at how much better things are now than even 10
years ago. And they'll continue to get better with time, I guarantee.
Would you have all minorities hole themselves away? That'd be good - we
could have fat country, ginger haired country, physically disabled
country, black country, deaf country, blind country ad infinitum. And
then we'd all learn a lot about each other, we'd all grasp the concept
that there is more to a person, any person, than one facet of their
physical/sexual/emotional make up. And we'd all be very happy.
Tsss.
--
Martin Kirk
James Doemer
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35daa1ac...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:53:32 -0400, "James Doemer"
><big...@provide.net> wrote:
>
>>No, I don't believe that anyone, gay or straight, should be held out for
>>embarrassment, public ridicule,
>
>Does your hetero vote even count?
Possibly not..... But I didn't see a "gay only" condition in the post. If
my opinion is
unimportant to you, please feel free to disregard my vote.
>
>The purpose of Hetero Shame is mainly to address the silence of the
>hetero majority that claims to not be allied with the religious
>right...yet in their silence, they give sanction.
Have I been silent??
>They do nothing to
>speak out against homophobia, nor anything to support gay rights. If
>this were not true, we'd find many more gay-supportive posters and
>announcements in hangouts set aside for our "liberal" heterosexual
>populace (which places indeed DO provide a voice against racism, child
>abuse, and women's rights). Instead, there's barely a peep of protest
>against gay hatred.
I cannot speak for all hetros, but I do "peep" whenever the opportunity
presents itself.
>
>It has often been shown, that public shame is an effective form of
>social sanction, where other methods have failed. The idea of shaming
>the hetero majority for its silence, fits in quite well as a likely
>effective tactic of civil dissent.
>
How effective has public shame been against homosexuals in the RR's attempt
to keep you in the closet? If I thought it might work, I would consider
it, however,
the more likely outcome is that you will simply engender a deeper sense of
us vs.
them, piss alot of people off, and it will not serve your purposes at all,
unless your
purposes are simply motivated by revenge.
>>or criminal punishment for public displays of affection (hand holding,
>>kissing, hugging, etc), and that laws and punishments for non-legal
>>public displays of affection (intercourse etc...) should be set and
>>applied equally across all gender orientations.
>
>Last I looked, there are no laws enforced to give gay people equal
>status to heterosexuals...except in a few scattered places here and
>there.
I agree, I believe that there should be...
>And even in those few places, the pro-gay laws are weakly
>enforced...while the danger of bashing continues unabated, and is just
>as bad as anywhere else in Amerika.
Agreed, we need to continue to work to change that...
>This public humiliation upon heteros is nothing
>compared to the
>genocide upon gays that is almost a national sport in the good ol' boy
>USofA. It would last a week, and only be put upon those str8s who do
>*not respect gay neighborhoods enough to forego public displays of
>petting.
Public humiliation is never nothing, it is not life affirming for those
being
humiliated, nor those doing the humiliation, it is a base human response
to fear, and it degrades all of us. We should be working to end it, not
increase it.
What, exactly is a gay neighborhood?? How many gays must live their?
One? Two?
How are the boundaries set? What about the hetero couples that also live
in that
neighborhood? Will they be required to vacate gay neighborhoods during
this week?
>
>Obviously, Doemer, you have a problem with this. I don't wonder why.
>
Little wonder, I have a problem with the belief that we can end
discrimination, by
discrimination, or with anyone that feels the need to validate themselves,
through
the humiliation of others. Regardless of sexual orientation... And yes,
I have
spoken out against heteros for the same thing.
criminal
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:53:32 -0400, "James Doemer"
> <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>
> >No, I don't believe that anyone, gay or straight, should be held out for
> >embarrassment, public ridicule,
>
> Does your hetero vote even count?
Everyone's vote counts. This is a "democracy" (as you prefer to call it)
is it not? Then treat this like one.
criminal
> >Hell, I'M not even all for it, and I am GAY!
>
> You are not gay, in either the political or social sense. You are
> heterocentric all the way through, except for your occassional sexual
> tryst and fantasy.
The fact that I sleep with men and participate in life sa though a
normal human being would doesn't count to Zeke. The fact that I do not
believe in his discrimination to fight discrimination, nor uses of
violence, nor anythingh else similar to that is what he uses to refer to
me as heterocentric. Fine, ignore the parts of me that matter, Zeke, and
focus on what you want to focus on. I'll continue to live happily
watching you and your 'cause' flounder until you can get a real value
system going.
> >Therefore, lets see something.... The HETERO SHAME WEEK POLL!!! (God we
> >are having fun with this poll things aren't we?)
>
> A poll that will only be participated in your tiny clique...thus
> satisfying your petty ego. Birds of a feather flock together.
Then participate, you fool! Vote for it! Convince everyone to vote for
it! THis is the general idea, Zeke. Everyone gets a vote, not just those
that 'matter.'
criminal
>
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:23:31 GMT, ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel
> Krahlin) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:52:05 -0500, criminal <wo...@chaos.firewind.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> Our enemies would attempt to dismantle such a project. Our straight
> >>> friends would be all for it.
> >>
> >
> >You are not gay, in either the political or social sense. You are
> >heterocentric all the way through, except for your occassional sexual
> >tryst and fantasy.
> >
>
> because you don't hate ALL heterosxuals" club.
Thank you, Thank you. *bow*
I'd like ot that all my friends and family for helping me achieve this
glorious honor in my society..... blah blah blah....
=D
Ezekiel Krahlin
images about the anti-gay ad in S.F. Examiner, due to crummy
host service. Here are the new locations:
S.F. Examiner's anti-gay ad:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad.htm
S.F. Examiner's rationale for publishing the ad:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad-e2.htm
S.F. Examiner's letters to the editor commenting on the ad:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad-l.htm
George Spelvin
> >But what you propose is unconstitutional and ludicrous. Rather than
> >limit people's civil rights, do things to advocate protecting the civil
> >rights of those whose rights are impinged.
>
> What I propose is an action of civil disobedience. Technically, all
> acts of civil dissent--even peaceful--are "illegal". Throwing tea into
> the Boston harbor was illegal...in the eyes of King George.
Except throwing tea into the harbor didn't violate anyone's civil
rights, didn't detain innocent people.
> >I am very aware of
> >the multitude of homophobes and Christian persecutors. But your idea
> >would not attack them, rather it would be aimed at all heterosexuals.
>
> So what. Any heteros that care about gay rights, would gladly refrain
> from public displays of affection, for the week of Hetero Shame.
You can't force people (under the threat of arrestment or fine) to do
your will. That is fascistic.
> The purpose of Hetero Shame is mainly to address the silence of the
> hetero majority that claims to not be allied with the religious
> right...yet in their silence, they give sanction. They do nothing to
> speak out against homophobia, nor anything to support gay rights.
I have no problem with Hetero Shame Week. What I have a problem with is
your proposal to arrest people for not breaking any laws. What I have a
problem with is your plan to ensure rights for one group by denying
rights to another.
By the way, I am a hetero who does speak out for gay rights.
> >Hetero couples groping in a gay bar in order to piss people off is
> >wrong, but not all heterosexuals behave this way.
>
> It is legal for them to do so...yet not legal for gays to do same.
What? Are you telling me it is illegal for two men or two women to
exhibit public displays of affection? I was brought up near San
Francisco and have spent a lot of time in NYC and I have seen plenty
legal homosexual displays of affection. I agree that there are many
bigots and homophobes who will attack any such people, but they aren't
illegal.
> >You don't establish gay civil
> >rights by eliminating the civil rights of those who are not gay.
>
> There would be no elimination of others' rights. There would, however,
> be a short period of time when gays get to arrest heteros for doing
> the same things that often get gays put in jail...and worse!
Okay, that is suspending the civil rights of others. Same difference.
Are you saying that gays get put in jail for public displays of
affection? Have you ever walked around the intersection of Polk and
Castro???
I'm not unsympathetic to your ends, just your means.
Yours,
George
Ezekiel Krahlin
<c66...@showme.missouri.eduNOSPAM> wrote:
>Okay, that is suspending the civil rights of others. Same difference.
>Are you saying that gays get put in jail for public displays of
>affection? Have you ever walked around the intersection of Polk and
>Castro???
We are talking about less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the land
surface of all urban areas of the U.S....and even less in comparison
to the entire country. Heteros own it all...all their hetero
privileges they take for granted, which are denied gay people.
As an exercise in civil dissent, I think Hetero Shame Week is a great
idea. I can even imagine those pro-gay heteros who are wealthy,
intentionally breaking the law just in order to pay the fine...and to
avoid jail, they can pay triple: $1,500. Then they can go back to
petting in public, and pay yet another $1,500. Sort of like attending
a $1,000 plate fund raiser.
>I'm not unsympathetic to your ends, just your means.
You grossly exaggerate the miniscule freedom gay people have in this
nation. You see "plenty" of gay affection in some very confined areas
within a geographical area...as if this represents how it is for all
gays everywhere. I, and every other gay person, must live in the
shadow of terror, wherever we go...even in the few "gay-friendly"
specks on the map of the United States.
The purpose of Hetero Shame is mainly to address the silence of the
hetero majority that claims to not be allied with the religious
right...yet in their silence, they give sanction. They do nothing to
speak out against homophobia, nor anything to support gay rights. If
this were not true, we'd find many more gay-supportive posters and
announcements in hangouts set aside for our "liberal" heterosexual
populace (which places indeed DO provide a voice against racism, child
abuse, and women's rights). Instead, there's barely a peep of protest
against gay hatred.
For shame, for shame...for *hetero shame!
---
Right-wing queers are all it takes
To fill gay rights with rattlesnakes.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:
> Having read a number of people's responses to this item, I am
>withdrawing my sugestion to picket the SF Examiner.
UPDATE: San Francisco Bay Area Times (a les/gay newspaper) published
the following editorial on August 20, 1998 (page 10):
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION
QUIT THE EXAMINER
Last Sunday, the San Francisco Examiner published a full page ad in
their newspaper that claimed that "homosexuals can change." This ad
was one of a series of ads that have appeared in newspapers across the
country.
The publication of this ad was nothing short of an assault on our
community. The ad is hate speech, pure and simple, and there is
absolutely no excuse for the Examiner publishing it. The ad is part of
a well-publicized Right Wing plan to destroy the gay community. They
want to do away with us--and if we won't go away, they'll settle for
criminalizing us and rendering us invisible. That's their goal. And
that is the agenda the Examiner has chosen to promote with the
publication of this ad.
Can you imagine for a second that the Examiner would have published an
ad written by the Ku Klux Klan targeting African Americans? Can you
imagine that there's any chance they would have published an ad
blaming Jews for the violence they're endured and urging them to turn
to Jesus? Can you imagine they would have published any ad at all
targeting any racial or religious minority?
Of course they would not.
The Examiner is the newspaper that at every opportunity puts a gay
story "above the fold" on the front page. That's so we'll see it and
buy it at the newstand. They have no problem targeting us for our
dollars.
That, apparently, is what this is all about. The Examiner has said
that this is within their "Free Speech" rights as a newspaper to
publish this ad to engender a dialogue. They think they're off the
hook because they published an editorial denouncing the ad. They think
because they've published a story or two "gauging community reaction"
that they've fully delved into the issue. Bullshit. Newspapers make
decisions all the time about what ads to publish or not. In the last
couple years alone, the Bay Times has rejected ad campaigns that would
have netted this paper over $20,000, solely because we didn't feel
that the products would be healthly for our community.
The Examiner has a responsibility to the readership they serve--a
community that extends well beyond the boundaries of this City, with
its widely distributed Sunday edition. What did that ad mean to the
gay high school kids in the East Bay who have been driven from their
schools for being queer? What did that ad mean to the 14-year-old who
knows she's different, and doesn't know who to turn to? What license
did that ad give to the suburban fag basher who likes to make fun of
sissies? What did that ad do to the parent who is struggling to come
to terms with his or her child's sexuality? And whatever did that ad
mean to the children of gay parents who struggle every day on the
playground where the standard slur for everyone is "faggot"?
How much did those Right Wing demagogues enjoy seeing that ad--that
assault--in the face of the queer community of San Francisco?
Does the Examiner have any idea at all how insidious it is to read in
a paper published in the City of San Francisco: "Thank you Trent Loft,
Reggie White, and recording artists Angie and Debbie Winans for having
the courage to speak the truth about sexual sin"? These are people
that have assaulted us with their words, that have made our enemies
feel safe and smug in their bigotry.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano has called on the Examiner to give the ad money
to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. That will be a
good start.
Until the Examiner either returns the money or turns it over to GLAAD,
the Bay Times calls on the gay community--and everyone else in San
Francisco--to quit buying the Examiner. Cancel your subscription. The
Examiner has shown us that all they care about is money, so perhaps
they will understand what we mean if we take away our gay dollars. The
Bay Times hopes that when The Examiner gives the money to GLAAD or
returns it to the advertiser, they issue an apology to our community
at the same time.
Our lives and our full dignity as human beings are at stake in this
struggle we call the "gay rights movement." That's what we care about
here at the Bay Times.
--Kim Corsaro, Publisher
=================================================
To view the scanned image of the editorial, go to:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/batimes2.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>The fact that I sleep with men and participate in life as though a
>normal human being would doesn't count to Zeke.
Yeah: as a normal RIGHT-WING, HETEROCENTRIC human being.
>The fact that I do not
>believe in his discrimination to fight discrimination, nor uses of
>violence, nor anythingh else similar to that is what he uses to refer to
>me as heterocentric.
I have not promoted discrimination, or violence as tactics. I have,
however, promoted mimicry of their discrimination to make a
point...much in the manner of satire. Violence has never been part of
my agenda.
>Then participate, you fool! Vote for it! Convince everyone to vote for
>it! THis is the general idea, Zeke. Everyone gets a vote, not just those
>that 'matter.'
Gee, your thread's really taken off, hasn't it? All those votes, my oh
my!
---
"Some Thracian now enjoys my blameless shield,
which I unwillingly left beside a bush.
But I was saved; what do I care about that shield?
Let it go, I'll get another no worse."
- Archilocus, 7th Century BC
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
Speedbyrd :>
Cherry) wrote:
>ezek...@my-dejanews.com (Ezekiel {Cthulhu} Krahlin) writes:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:46:56 -0500, criminal <wo...@chaos.firewind.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>The fact that I sleep with men and participate in life as though a
>>>normal human being would doesn't count to Zeke.
>
>>Yeah: as a normal RIGHT-WING, HETEROCENTRIC human being.
>
>>>The fact that I do not
>>>believe in his discrimination to fight discrimination, nor uses of
>>>violence, nor anythingh else similar to that is what he uses to refer to
>>>me as heterocentric.
>
>>I have not promoted discrimination, or violence as tactics. I have,
>>however, promoted mimicry of their discrimination to make a
>>point...much in the manner of satire. Violence has never been part of
>>my agenda.
>
>Another homo liar. Usenet is full of homo liars. Your good buddy JTEM
>accuses me of racism.
>
1. Homo, perhaps
2. Liar? no
3. Lots of gays on Internet and numbers still growing!
4. you are a racist and a miserable person.
did I get everything?? Yep, think so!
The Speedbyrd(tm) :>
... the usual suspect
ICQ# 17433172
JTEM
fritz
> People, when are you going to realize that the best way to deal with this
> bullshit is to simply let it pass? Yes, the SF Chron was a piece of shit to
> take the $30,000 for the ad (I'm a SF resident), but our power has always
> been our reluctance to acknowledge the idiocrisy of the Religious Right. As
> long as we are here, we will hear from some corners that our lifestyle is
> "wrong" and "indecent" Only when we overcome throughout the generations will
> it be noticed that it's not worth their time to single us out, because they
> won't get a reaction from us!
All that is needed for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.
Gay people are in a fight for their lives, they can't just stand by and do
nothing.
> There's a saying that goes, "Don't stoop to their level." Let's do just
> that, and prove that a full-page ad in a major newspaper isn't going to do
> JACK SHIT when it comes to living our lives sanely, lovingly, and healthily!
That would be nice if it were that easy, but their not going to let you just
live your life. They need to harass gays for their political and religious ends.
And as long as the people buy it gays are in trouble.
--
Fritz...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is,, a great time.
Fred Cherry
A miserable person, in the view of homos like you, is any hetero who
publicly oppses the Gay Agenda.
>did I get everything?? Yep, think so!
No, you left something out.
What you, JTEM, and the rest of you homo liars omitted is any evidence
that I am a racist.
jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)
JTEM
Could someone please inform Salty that he's a weenie and Robbie_C (aka
Bruce) dissed him big-time?
Thanks in advance.
John
P.S.
Racist, anti-semite, Fred Cherry (jo...@world.std.com) wrote:
[nothing]