Hetero Shame Week
Ezekiel Krahlin
FULL PAGE anti-gay ad in this Sunday's Examiner/Chronicle (August 16,
1998; page A-22). The official excuse by the Examiner's publisher is:
it's their right to free speech, as much as we may abhor it (according
to a news spot on channel 5 10 o'clock news Friday night, August 14).
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? Or from the Idaho Chamber of Commerce proposing that all Chinese
Americans be shipped back to the land of their ancestors? 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 (and I have lived here since 1973). Now, I see my
suspicions confirmed: just more phony hetero liberals stabbing us in
the back, while they smile in our faces. Meanwhile, I suggest massive
demonstrations and civil dissent at the doors of their newspaper
building on 5th and Market Streets...as well as a complete boycott of
their business...that all present subscribers should cease,
immediately, buying their brownshirt newspaper. We should demand that
the entire $35,000 should go towards our own homeless, poor, and
disabled lesbian and gay people in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Likewise, all gay reporters and other employees of the S.F.
Chronicle/Examiner should consider a walk-out strike...or even quit
their present jobs.
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 think 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 restriction on free speech should include the
three following rules:
1) No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another person. (As
in: "Stone those faggots to death.")
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. (As
in: "Would you really let a faggot teach your children?")
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.
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.
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!
===============================================================
If you haven't yet viewed the anti-gay ad, I have scanned it, and
uploaded it to:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad.htm
To read the S.F. Examiner's rationale for why they published it, go
to:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad-e1.htm
And to read letters to editor's comments about the ad, go to:
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad-l.htm
---
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/
Theodore A. Kaldis
society will ever accept homosexuality as a "viable alternate
lifestyle". There are many straights who might pretend that they are
friendly to homosexuals, but they do so only because they do not wish
to be vilified as "homophobes". It's what they say in private among
those whom they trust that really counts. I hear it, but homosexuals
don't. Even all the supposed "gains" homosexuals think they have
achieved are starting to unravel.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Ezekiel Krahlin
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
---
Right-wing queers are all it takes
To fill gay rights with rattlesnakes.
Pan...@la-online.com
I totally disagree. There are plenty of religious zealots out there who
will always be opposed to ANY lifestyle which differs radically from
their own, and there will probably always be people so insecure in their
own sexual identity that they will feel threatened by ANY people who are
comfortable with theirs.
Still, there is no reason to suppose that all hetero's feel threatened
by gays, nor should it be assumed that everyone who is comfortable with
people regardless of their sexual orienation is doing it as part of an
act. I, for one, feel much more at ease around openly gay men who are
comfortable with themselves and others than I am around straight men who
are also closed-minded bigots. I can also say that coming to that
realization and self-comfort level was part of a developmental process
for me as I suspect that it is for all of us.
As for this "viable alternative lifestyle" comment. Alternative to
what? A frustrated and warped existence in which one is trapped in a
role and in relationships that don't suit them? I'd much rather be
around healthy, happy, comfortable people than warped, frustrated, angry
people (my occasional lapses into warped and acidic critique
notwithstanding).
---
The problem with wisdom is that each of us only has one lifetime to
acquire it. That makes acquiring wisdom, at a societal level, a very
slow developmental process.
Rich
<Big snip>
Sorry to disappoint you but being gay is a choice, not a race.
Just like lying, cheating, or stealing... it's a choice.
You either do it or don't. Being a race is not a choice, you
are black, white, hispanic, oriental, etc. People look down
on things they believe are not morally acceptable, of which
is lying, cheating, stealing, and yes choosing to have sex
with the same sex. It is in fact morally wrong in my opinion,
and most of America. I stand by the Bible and what it teaches,
call me right wing, call me Jesus Freak, whatever...that
gets you no where by the way. That does not mean though that
I hate that person. The Bible teaches to condemn the sin, not
the sinner. Hate the sin not the person in other words. Even
though my daughter may lie that doesn't mean I don't love her, but
I must condemn it.
Same goes for the gay person. But...when gay people start
requesting special rights because of a choice they made, no
don't think so. That's like giving special rights to a liar.
So I guess I'm a liarphobe, cheatophobe, stealophobe etc..
You guys talk about us pushing our values and beliefs on you, but
what about you forcing us to accept your "lifestyle" as some
kind of race or minority who deserve special rights. You guys
are comprised of mostly upper and upper-middle class, saying
you're in need is a lie (this is generally speaking mind you).
I have had friends who were gay, I did not condone it though.
Does that make me a homophobe? I'm not afraid of gay people.
Also, what's with you guys oppressing the folks who want to
get out of the gay lifestyle. You treat them as traitors, yet
you say you want peace and love and equality but sure don't
display it.
Once again, being gay is a choice not a race.
--
Rich
"Straighten up and Fly Right"
Remove the 9R's to reply directly; thanks spam.
Pan...@la-online.com
>
> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> <Big snip>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you but being gay is a choice, not a race.
> Just like lying, cheating, or stealing... it's a choice.
No. Sexual attraction is not a choice. Living a lie is a choice.
Being false to yourself is a choice. Sexual preference is not.
> You either do it or don't. Being a race is not a choice, you
> are black, white, hispanic, oriental, etc. People look down
> on things they believe are not morally acceptable, of which
> is lying, cheating, stealing, and yes choosing to have sex
> with the same sex.
Some people look down on it. Others look down on bigoted people who
fear and cast out others who are different from themselves. Both
actions are a matter of choice.
> It is in fact morally wrong in my opinion,
> and most of America.
Slavery used to be morally acceptable in america. People used biblical
arguments to justify it. That doesn't make it right.
> I stand by the Bible and what it teaches,
> call me right wing, call me Jesus Freak, whatever...that
> gets you no where by the way.
What you stand by is an interpretation of the bible. I won't critique
your desire to "stand by" a document and a god that promote ignorance
and condemn reason, or the ability to think for ones' self, even to the
point of calling it a sin. That's your choice. Some people need such
illusions to deal with themselves, their mortality, their guilt, their
fears and their desires. Religion can be a good thing, socially
speaking. But its value in a pluralistic, multicultural society is lost
when those religions start criticizing people in the way that you are
doing now.
> Same goes for the gay person. But...when gay people start
> requesting special rights because of a choice they made, no
> don't think so.
Special rights?? The only right that Ezekiel was requesting was the
"right" not to have his lifestyle condemned publicly. What he was
asking for is the right to be treated as a human being. That people
respect his right to be a self determining individual. That people
respect, and acknowledge his right to be happy and comfortable with
himself. Christianity, particularly christian fundamentalism breeds
hypocrisy. On the one hand, your crucified god tells you that only god
may judge the actions of man, on the other, christians tend to be the
first ones in line to cast their own judgement on their fellow man.
...snip...
> Once again, being gay is a choice not a race.
So is being a bigot.
Matthew Alexander
<kal...@home.com> wrote:
>Homosexuals are only fooling themselves if they believe that straight
>society will ever accept homosexuality as a "viable alternate
>lifestyle". There are many straights who might pretend that they are
>friendly to homosexuals, but they do so only because they do not wish
>to be vilified as "homophobes".
Actually, we do so because we're not stupid.
-><- Matt Alexander
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew
them like applesauce they taste more like prunes than a rhubarb does.
Now, uh.. Now you tell me what you know." -Marx*
word warrior
>
> No. Sexual attraction is not a choice. Living a lie is a choice.
> Being false to yourself is a choice. Sexual preference is not.
Actually, whether sexual attraction is a choice or a case of damaged
wiring is irrelevent. If the latter were the case, homosexuality should
be no more a source of pride or personal identification that color
blindness (guess that must make traffic lights a hateful form of
"bigotry").
>
> Some people look down on it [homosexuality]. Others look down on bigoted people who
> fear and cast out others who are different from themselves. Both
> actions are a matter of choice.
So is being disingenuous, as the above. When all else fails, quack the
duckspeak criticism of "bigotry"
>
> Slavery used to be morally acceptable in america. People used biblical
> arguments to justify it. That doesn't make it right.
Ask what on earth this has to do with sodomy, and you see the above
point collapse before your eyes.
>
> What you stand by is an interpretation of the bible. I won't critique
> your desire to "stand by" a document and a god that promote ignorance
> and condemn reason, or the ability to think for ones' self,
[hence the sodomy supporter uses anti-religious "bigotry" to defend
himself. There is little the homophile won't trash to shape a world
where he can jam it up Boy Scouts with impunity]
even to the
> point of calling it a sin. That's your choice.
[Indeed, sin itself is a choice
Some people need such
> illusions to deal with themselves, their mortality, their guilt, their
> fears and their desires.
[Note that the homophile thus projects his/her/its own concepts on the
opposition... the word "desires" is a giveaway on this]
Religion can be a good thing, socially
> speaking. But its value in a pluralistic, multicultural society is lost
> when those religions start criticizing people in the way that you are
> doing now.
[The old fallacy that to call a sinner a sinner is offensive to the
sinner, and hence wrong.]
>
> > Once again, being gay is a choice not a race.
>
> So is being a bigot.
[and so is being a dishonest gay propagandist]
Thomas Andrews
>P...@LA-Online.com offered the following primer on pro-sodomy propaganda.
>
>>
>> No. Sexual attraction is not a choice. Living a lie is a choice.
>> Being false to yourself is a choice. Sexual preference is not.
>
>Actually, whether sexual attraction is a choice or a case of damaged
>wiring is irrelevent. If the latter were the case, homosexuality should
>be no more a source of pride or personal identification that color
>blindness (guess that must make traffic lights a hateful form of
>"bigotry").
>
Ummm, so you think it should be okay to fire color blind people from
their jobs for being color blind even if the color-blindness is
not affecting job performance.
Traffic lights actually accomodate color blind people - have you ever
noticed that the top light is always the red light?
I've heard at least one specialist recently discussing left-handedness
as a "defect" because there are a lot of statistics indicating that
left-handed people tend more towards crime, tend to die younger, tend
to engage in riskier behavior. Should we return to the barbaric days
when we forced left-handed people to write and eat right-handed to make
them more like everybody else? Are you aware of what happens when
left-handed people are forced to act right-handed? Why would someone
"wired wrong" to be gay be any different when forced to deny his/her
nature, and to live a lie by society? [ Even as recently as the 1970s,
my sister had a teacher try to force her to write right-handed. ]
When I was young, I once asked a teacher why there was a "black pride"
movement - I didn't feel any need to be proud of my race. She pointed
out that when you have social pressures that attempt to make people
ashamed of their race, you need to take steps to actively push back
against that shame. Perhaps we'd be seeing "color-blindness pride"
if we'd spent a couple thousand years criminalizing and persecuting the
color-blind. There certainly is a kind of "left-handed pride" thing
which goes on, and lefties aren't even remotely persecuted today (unless
their leftness is political. :-)
--
Thomas Andrews thom...@yahoo.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Pan...@la-online.com
> > Some people look down on it [homosexuality]. Others look down on bigoted people who
> > fear and cast out others who are different from themselves. Both
> > actions are a matter of choice.
>
> So is being disingenuous, as the above. When all else fails, quack the
> duckspeak criticism of "bigotry"
It is bigotry. Moreover, from someone who calls himself a christian, it
is hypocrisy.
> > Slavery used to be morally acceptable in america. People used biblical
> > arguments to justify it. That doesn't make it right.
>
> Ask what on earth this has to do with sodomy, and you see the above
> point collapse before your eyes.
The point was made that the original poster "believes what the bible
says", and on his account, "the bible says that homosexuality is a
sin." Biblical arguments have been used to promote slavery in america.
Today, they are used to say that it is wrong. Thus, biblical
interpretation is subject to radical change over time regardless of what
your subculture would have you believe.
> > What you stand by is an interpretation of the bible. I won't critique
> > your desire to "stand by" a document and a god that promote ignorance
> > and condemn reason, or the ability to think for ones' self,
> [hence the sodomy supporter uses anti-religious "bigotry"
Bigotry? Hardly. I suspect that you must be largely unfamiliar with
the genesis myth if you believe that the christian deity promotes reason
and knowledge among humanity.
> to defend
> himself. There is little the homophile won't trash to shape a world
> where he can jam it up Boy Scouts with impunity]
Sorry, personal attacks won't get it done here. But what a curiously
fundamentalist thing to do. Encounter someone with a different
viewpoint than your own, and rather than try and understand it, insult
them and try to paint them as the "satanic other". This exposes yet
another problem with christianity. The reduction of all opposing views
to irreconcilable binary opposites. Convenient in maintaining a world
view. Not so convenient when it comes to promoting human understanding.
> even to the
> > point of calling it a sin. That's your choice.
> [Indeed, sin itself is a choice
And the sin we are speaking of here is the ability to think for one's
self. The root cause of "humanity's fall from grace."
> > Some people need such
> > illusions to deal with themselves, their mortality, their guilt, their
> > fears and their desires.
> [Note that the homophile thus projects his/her/its own concepts on the
> opposition... the word "desires" is a giveaway on this]
{note: an aspect of dehumanizing that is acceptable to some christians.
As the discussion progresses, I have been referenced not as you, a
person, etc. but rather as a pejorative label (homophile) and have now
gone from being "he" to "it". This is the type of progression that some
christians follow that allows them to do things like kill people in the
name of their god. What they are killing or criticizing is no longer
human but 'homophile' or 'it' which in this case is code for 'evil
other'.)
As for the rest... The irony here is that the values promoted by
religion are often the cause of guilt feelings about the desires
themselves which in turn further promotes the "need" for religion.
> Religion can be a good thing, socially
> > speaking. But its value in a pluralistic, multicultural society is lost
> > when those religions start criticizing people in the way that you are
> > doing now.
> [The old fallacy that to call a sinner a sinner is offensive to the
> sinner, and hence wrong.]
The only fallacy here involves the belief of some christians that they
have some sort of priviliged perspective on what does, and does not,
constitute ethical behaviour and are therefore equipped to pass
judgement on others. Another irony is that their own religion preaches
against this and labels it as hypocrisy.
Stan Rothwell
> 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.
Free speech works both ways... and life's a bitch.
> I have never felt that San Francisco at large, has ever cared much for
> its gay population (and I have lived here since 1973). Now, I see my
> suspicions confirmed: just more phony hetero liberals stabbing us in
> the back, while they smile in our faces. Meanwhile, I suggest massive
> demonstrations and civil dissent at the doors of their newspaper
> building on 5th and Market Streets...as well as a complete boycott of
> their business...that all present subscribers should cease,
> immediately, buying their brownshirt newspaper.
Sounds like "massive demonstrations" are more of a "brownshirt" tactic
thanthe Examiner printing a paid advert...
> We should demand that
> the entire $35,000 should go towards our own homeless, poor, and
> disabled lesbian and gay people in the San Francisco Bay Area.
What gives you that right (other than your perceived moral outrage)???
> Likewise, all gay reporters and other employees of the S.F.
> Chronicle/Examiner should consider a walk-out strike...or even quit
> their present jobs.
Have you considered that not all "gay" people consider their sexual
preference and politics one and the same???
> It is obvious to me that homophobia in America is overwhelming us.
Sounds more like self-perceived victimization.... Grow up!!!
Ever heard the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones"???
> 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.
I don't think it's a question of NOT being able to do so, but if you
insist on enthusiastic endorsement of your "different" (I'm trying to be
tactful) lifestyle, you may find things fall a bit short of your
expectations...
> I think that American free speech is a distortion of what it's
> supposed to be.
Merely because some individuals express ideas that are not "politically
correct"???
> ..in that it wrongly defends even the most violent of
> hate speech. All liberties must have their restrictions,
Zealots like you are the LAST people I want restricting my liberties!!!
> else they
> soon lose relevance. The restriction on free speech should include the
> three following rules:
>
> 1) No promoting the injury, death, or torture of another person. (As
> in: "Stone those faggots to death.")
You have the right to press criminal charges or seek redress againstthe
ACTIONS of others, not to restrict their speech.
> 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.")
Would that extend reciprocally to trashing members of religious groups
than (how shall I put it) find homosexual activity at odds with their
theological teachings???
> 3) No promoting prejudice against a people or person, that is known
> to provoke violence or other persecution against them or her/him. (As
> in: "Would you really let a faggot teach your children?")
You are putting yourself on a slippery slope when you mess with the First
Amendment.
Homosexuals represent a MINORITY. The First Amendment was put there to
protect the right of the MINORITY to express an opinion even when it was
not in concordance with the views of the majority. Censorship is a
double-edged sword, and when speech rights are restricted the minority
typically loses more than the majority.
Meanwhile (until we earn our freedom as equal-class citizens)
I don't recall homosexuals being born with some identifying mark (scarlet
letter or otherwise) that would caused them to be singled out or even
conspicuous. Your sexuality only becomes an issue when you MAKE it into
an issue!!!
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.
You're getting ridiculous...
> 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!
And who are the Brownshirts here???
>
>
> If you haven't yet viewed the anti-gay ad, I have scanned it, and
> uploaded it to:
>
> http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/sf-ad.htm
>
Perhaps not very popular in SF, but not much to qualify it as being
hateful or inciting violence.I'm not going to debate whether homosexuality
is a genetic or behavioral phenomena, but
there certainly is truth w/r/t incidence of disease as well as drug
use/alcoholism and suicide.
Yes, they claim that homosexuality is a sin, but they also mention that
they don't consider
themselves free of sin either. Many will find it unsettling, but that's
the price of free speech...
> ---
> 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!
Nasty snipes by someone obviously insecure about his own sexuality!!!But
then again, what would you expect from a zealot who makes his sexual
preferences into a political issue???
Stan Rothwell
(BTW, if you're alive and can read this, you're probably related to a
heterosexual...)
John
"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"
America, at large, has never cared for homos and it is time that the city
you have declared to be your "Marvelous Mecca" reach out and try to reclaim
it's right to not be recognized as a city filled with Homos.
To address your issues with the way you, as a homo, feel about the way you
are treated by minorities, and the way you consider yourself a minority, I
would say they are well-deserved.
Blacks, Asians, Indians, Mexicans, and other minority groups have simply not
chosen to be a minority.
Don't start to assume that I am saying that anyone has chosen to be gay,
because that isn't the issue I am addressing here.
You HAVE chosen to let people know you are gay, when there is no other way
anyone can know. If not gay, then you are just another person within this
society...something that you can't stand. So, you are out on the street,
letting everyone know that you are gay, by, as demonstrated in your very own
letter, choosing to impose your beliefs on everyone.
You know as well as I do that there are a considerable amount of people who
have very strong feelings against Homos, and you should expect that
occasionally one of you flamers will step on the toes of one of these people
who feel as strongly against Homos as you feel for them.
A violent situation is made by your willingness to become a martyr for your
cause.
You are, by no means, a minority, and are as undeserving as I am to claim
any of those rights afforded by a country who once oppressed them.
In my own personal opinion, I wish everyone would take the stand that you
do.
I wish that every straight person would boycott any business that hired a
Homo.
Before you suggest such action, you should consider it's likely reactions.
John