Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida Court
Butt Plug
>
> (CNSNews.com) - A Florida judge Thursday upheld the
> state's ban of
> homosexuals adopting children, saying since there is
> no "fundamental
> right to adopt or be adopted, there can be no
> fundamental right to
> apply for adoption." U.S. Judge James Lawrence King,
> senior judge for
> the U.S. Southern District of Florida, accepted the
> state's argument
> that the law was in the best interests of children,
> because married
> heterosexual couples provide a more stable home.
> Steven Lofton and
> Douglas Houghton filed the lawsuit after they were
> told they couldn't
> adopt children. The men charged the state's adoption
> laws, saying they
> discriminate against homosexuals. "Plaintiffs have
> not asserted that
> they can demonstrate that homosexual families are
> equivalently stable,
> are able to provide proper gender identification or
> are no more
> socially stigmatizing than married heterosexual
> families," King said.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
--
This is message #184.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Dana S. Leslie
contrary to what Chief Thracian was saying earlier today, what is called
"homophobia' is as often directed against gender transgression as against
same-sex sexual relations.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
--
This is message #191.
Chief Thracian
<dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>The judge's 'rationale', in part, goes to demonstrate my contention that,
>contrary to what Chief Thracian was saying earlier today, what is called
>"homophobia' is as often directed against gender transgression as against
>same-sex sexual relations.
Then I believe you misinterpreted what I said. I said that the main
thrust of attacks on transvestites and drag queens remains the "gay"
issue...in that these types are perceived as same-sex lovers. When you
are attack for any sort of gender transgression, at the heart of this
attack is the threat of same-sex love...particularly, between or among
males.
So yes, clearly it is homophobia that causes straights to bash drag
queens, trannies, etc. And this is *not contrary to what I have said
in this matter.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #209.
Cheopys
So yes, clearly it is homophobia that causes straights to bash drag
queens, trannies, etc. And this is *not contrary to what I have said
in this matter.
A lot of men feel a visceral reaction to a man dressed convincingly as a women; I think that trying to eradicate this reaction would be like trying to eradicate castration anxiety. No that doesn't mean we need to accept an eternity of bigotry toward people who will likely remain .. but we're not going to begin to understand it if we roll it all into one big amorphous blob called "homophobia."
Dana S. Leslie
What you said *is* *directly* contrary to what I said.
You:
> Then I believe you misinterpreted what I said. I said that the main
> thrust of attacks on transvestites and drag queens remains the "gay"
> issue...in that these types are perceived as same-sex lovers.
What I said is that this is quite often *not* true. I believe that, quite
often, attacks on T people of all sorts has next to nothing to nothing to do
with their perceived sexuality, but is *primarily* based on their perceived
gender transgression. I know many people who are quite sincere in saying
that they have no issue with men loving men, as long as they are both *men*.
But, if one of the males in question does not identify as a man, and lives
her gender transgression outside of the bedroom, .... well, that's an
entirely different story. I have also had first hand experience of this
double standard in tolerance/acceptance, from within my own family.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
--
This is message #213.
Chief Thracian
>Nothing clear about it, and plenty of evidence that it's something
>else. Gender identity runs a lot deeper than cultural values; children are
>assertive about their gender identities at very early ages.
It's still homophobia. You can break down homophobia into several
classes of prejudice. The most common expletive used against gender
changers is "faggot"...same as with gays. Thus, is the perception of
our society at large, towards trannies: they are thrown in the same
pool as gays and all other queers.
>A lot of men feel a visceral reaction to a man dressed convincingly as a
>women; I think that trying to eradicate this reaction would be like trying
>to eradicate castration anxiety.
I think separating this from the gay issue, and trying to find some
new term other than "homophobia" is like castrating the gay struggle.
Besides, this visceral reaction you point to, remains an aspect of
homophobia, not "trannie-phobia" or whatever lable you choose to use.
>we're not going to begin to understand it if we roll it all into one big amorphous
>blob called "homophobia."
What's there to understand? It's a prejudice against the right of men
to love other men...which includes playing around with gender. It's
still homophobia...which is not "one big amorphous blob" of a
word...it hits the nail right on the head.
The cause for homophobia is already well understood, and can be
explained in great detail as to its origins and maintenance. And this
phobia does not like at all, when men dress or act like women.
To try to create a separate politik around gender-swapping, is as much
a betrayal against gay rights, as is create a separate movement for
bisexuals. May I remind you that bisexuals, too, are attacked due to
society's homophobia. The bashers do not holler "bi, bi, bi" at them,
they holler "faggot".
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #227.
Chief Thracian
<dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>I know many people who are quite sincere in saying
>that they have no issue with men loving men, as long as they are both *men*.
>But, if one of the males in question does not identify as a man, and lives
>her gender transgression outside of the bedroom, .... well, that's an
>entirely different story.
I doubt that you know "many people" who accept gays but condemn
trannies...an exaggeration if I may say so.
Those same people who claim to accept gays, only do so as long as they
do not act "gay" in public. And trannies are perceived as just that:
acting gay in the public arena.
Outlawing homophobia will go a long way towards protecting all other
members under the Queer Umbrella, especially trannies. To make a
subset of the queer family the major issue, is to water down the
vitally important struggle for gay equality...the right of two people
of the same gender to love each other (in public as well as in
private; online as well asl offline).
Then, we can deal with the real issue, which you confuse with gender
playing: misogyny. And there's a *lot of that among both gay and
straight men; sadly.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #229.
Cheopys
As for the rest of your "analysis," it's rubbish. The lens through which you view the world is cracked and occluded. To fold gender identity imperatives that precede speech itself into culturally-taught prejudices is beyond intellectually sloppy ... it's idiotic.
Dana S. Leslie
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida Court
--
This is message #239.
Chief Thracian
>I'm bisexual and the only people who have EVER given me shit about were
>gay. Every single goddamn one.
"Every single goddamn one"!!?!??!!! My, with such a bad attitude about
gays, no wonder they give you shit. You deserve it!
>Ask any bisexual.
I already do check out my bisexual acquaintances. Only a handful
harbor no resentment or attitudes of superiority towards gays.
Otherwise, they shriek just like you: over how gays are supposedly
"always" giving bisexuals a hard time. Your kind of bisexuality is
much better suited for pairing with the opposite sex...in other words:
heterocentric.
>As for having "faggot" yelled, I don't think I've heard that in 20 years.
>Maybe it happens in working-class neighborhoods but my lover and
>I are PDA for days and I can't recall the last time anyone gave a shit.
Yeah, right. It's only been proven by a serious of polls about gay
awareness, across this country, over the last five years or so.
"Faggot" as anti-gay expletive has been on a sharp rise for just as
long. You are simply distorting the facts, in order to bolster you
bisexual-supremacist viewpoints.
>As for the rest of your "analysis," it's rubbish. The lens through which
>you view the world is cracked and occluded. To fold gender identity
>imperatives that precede speech itself into culturally-taught prejudices is
>beyond intellectually sloppy ... it's idiotic.
Without speech, there can be no real communication. We are reduced to
grunts and hand gestures, like in prehistoric times that preceded
speech. Obviously, such a world suits you to a T...where bisexuals
have the last word on what it means to be gay (along with heteros).
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #240.
Chief Thracian
<dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>As I said, I *do* know many such, including Gay men.
"Many" is not a number; it is a relative value. You could have 5 gay
friends, which makes "3" or "4" qualify as "many".
Have you done a survey? Have you read any polls done by others in this
matter?
Or do you believe it suffices as concrete fact, that your definition
of "many" is all we need to prove your point.
>Blessed Be,
And cursed ye!
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #241.
Sean Robertson
proved his point by way of your general attitude and phrases like "your kind
of bisexuality" and "your bisexual-supremacist viewpoints".
I can tell you right now what the entire problem is. People like you need
to realise that te labels are irrelevant. You cannot classify human
emotions in this fashion without being divisive. Who cares whether a guy
loves a man or a woman. That's irrelevant. All that should matter is that
they love someone. When are people going to stop seeing a gay relationship
or a straight relationship, and start seeing just the relationship. The
labels are irrelevant - always have been, always will be - only the people
and emotions themselves are relevant. Until you realise that, you only
perpetuate the very problem you claim to fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
--
This is message #244.
Cheopys
Who cares whether a guy
loves a man or a woman. That's irrelevant. All that should matter is that
they love someone. When are people going to stop seeing a gay relationship
or a straight relationship, and start seeing just the relationship.
D Stephen Heersink
ban of homosexuals adopting children, I do agree with the argument
that, all things being equal, a "family" composed of both man and
woman is a more desirable setting for children to grow up in. If for
no other reason than a man a woman are more like "ordinary" families,
and having dual genders in the home is both the normative biological
and sociological basis for rearing children.
Obviously, not "all things are always equal," and there are
certainly cases I can imagine where a homosexual parent or parents
would be preferred over a heterosexual parent or parents. That's the
problem with the Florida law; it allows for no discretion on the part
of courts and social services, much less the adoptee, to pick from
among a discrete group of people to place children for adoption.
Take but one example which can easily be multiplied: A
divorced husband and wife may have both recoupled, and one couple is
same-gendered while the other is opposite-gendered. At this point, the
opposite-gendered couple should have the apriori favor of the court.
But this is not the end point, only a midpoint. Perhaps the
opposite-gendered couple has addiction problems and difficulty keeping
a job, whereas the same-gendered couple is fully functional, with no
known impediments, including very good employment. The tip of the
scales thus favors the same-gendered couple over the opposite-gendered
couple. And so on . . . the process of deciding who is the best
parental couple continues until a reasonable decision is made.
In other words, being opposite-gendered is but ONE favorable
consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
same-gendered. But there's no reason to suppose that all the other
factors will tend toward the same conclusion, and may opt for the
same-gendered couple on an overall basis. That the State bars these
considerations is its evil.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #257.
Natalie Davis
> While I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Florida's
>ban of homosexuals adopting children, I do agree with the argument
>that, all things being equal, a "family" composed of both man and
>woman is a more desirable setting for children to grow up in. If for
>no other reason than a man a woman are more like "ordinary" families,
>and having dual genders in the home is both the normative biological
>and sociological basis for rearing children.
>
> Obviously, not "all things are always equal," and there are
>certainly cases I can imagine where a homosexual parent or parents
>would be preferred over a heterosexual parent or parents. That's the
>problem with the Florida law; it allows for no discretion on the part
>of courts and social services, much less the adoptee, to pick from
>among a discrete group of people to place children for adoption.
Oh my GOD!
Sorry, I can't believe a gay man is saying something so vile. So, if I am
married to a man and divorce him... and I settle down with a woman and he
settles down with a woman... HE should get priority when it comes to the
custody battle because he conforms to the heterosexual norm????
I never thought I'd say this... GO GET 'IM, ZEKE!
> In other words, being opposite-gendered is but ONE favorable
>consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
>same-gendered. But there's no reason to suppose that all the other
>factors will tend toward the same conclusion, and may opt for the
>same-gendered couple on an overall basis. That the State bars these
>considerations is its evil.
The whole goddamned decision is evil. And given this, other disgusting
court decisions, and the whole election mess, I'm inclined to look at the
whole goddamned state as an evil place.
Stephen, you are entitled to your opinion, which is as valid as anyone
else's. But I am horrified that a queer would hold such an anti-queer
position, one that upholds the sick, disgusting concept of heterosexual
supremacy. And it's my right to express my dismay, disappointment, and
disgust. I will pray for you, because I sense you need a few prayers.
--
This is message #260.
Cheopys
While I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Florida's
ban of homosexuals adopting children, I do agree with the argument
that, all things being equal, a "family" composed of both man and
woman is a more desirable setting for children to grow up in. If for
no other reason than a man a woman are more like "ordinary" families,
and having dual genders in the home is both the normative biological
and sociological basis for rearing children.
Dana S. Leslie
the man in question is an FTM TS Gay-identified man and the woman in
question is a TG-identified male woman. Sexuality aside, I'm sure that such
a couple would fail the Florida court's test for a couple that would provide
appropriate gender modeling for adopted children. But what of your prima
faci preference for dual-gendered couples as adoptive parents? Would such a
couple meet your prima faci test?
P.S. My boyfriend and I constitute just such a couple as I descried.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
--
This is message #262.
Dana S. Leslie
--
This is message #264.
D Stephen Heersink
>I can tell you right now what the entire problem is. People like you need
>to realise that te labels are irrelevant. You cannot classify human
>emotions in this fashion without being divisive. Who cares whether a guy
>loves a man or a woman. That's irrelevant. All that should matter is that
>they love someone. When are people going to stop seeing a gay relationship
>or a straight relationship, and start seeing just the relationship. The
>labels are irrelevant - always have been, always will be - only the people
>and emotions themselves are relevant. Until you realise that, you only
>perpetuate the very problem you claim to fight.
I couldn't agree more. The "Chief" comes across as the most cynical,
bordering on paranoid, homosexual I've ever encountered. He views the
world as "us" versus "them" in the very same way the homophobes did at
the 1992 Republican Convention (ala, Pat Robertson and Patrick
Buchanan). It caused the Republicans to go down to defeat that year by
painting Bush Sr. as an intolerant reactionary (which was hardly his
charism). But the tactics and consequences used by the homophobes are
the chief's principal tactics in reverse used by heterophobes.
The chief is right to alert us to the Religious Reich (an admirable
metathesis) and its enmity and hostility towards gays and lesbians.
These people are obviously motivated by hate more than love, by
conversion and reaction rather than understanding and tolerance, and
by religious perversion than religious enlightenment. If gays and
lesbians have an authentic enemy in today's world it is the religious
fanatics of all stripes: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, not to
overlook Buddhism and Hinduism. Such fanatics are to be found in all
walks of life, and the represent the single biggest threat to the
common good. Their only satisfaction is a complete theocracy with
their own version of fundamentalism as the only law.
But, as I have iterated before, we must be careful not to attack all
religious people, because many sincere Christians, Jews, Buddhists,
and the like have affirming attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Being
religious and being gay is not necessarily mutually exclusive, and
many of those who are religious but not gay offer a genuine buffer
against the hegemony of the Religious Reich. Many more are still in
the "reevaluation" phase of their own understanding, as recent polls
have borne out. They've always been homophobic "just" because, but
now, after questioning authority, they have found their "just because"
an inadequate defense. The last thing we need to do is frighten them
with our bellicose rhetoric and extremist behavior.
I agree wholeheartedly that being gay really isn't a big thing; it
just is. How and why people get all worked up in angst and enmity
towards gays and lesbians is beyond my comprehension, but not beyond
my ability to take note of it. I look forward to the day, which
already exists in several Western European countries, where being
"gay" is just another option and phase of being along a long and
varied continuum. We're not there yet here in the U.S., but we're
making progress. So are Australians. The more each of us recognizes
the common humanity among us, the less we have differences to fight
over. Sadly, my view of Chief Thracian is one of extreme cynicism,
harsh rhetoric, and mutual intolerance. We don't need to become the
enemy in order to fight it.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #266.
Jwe...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/31/2001 5:55:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
While I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Florida's
ban of homosexuals adopting children, I do agree with the argument
that, all things being equal, a "family" composed of both man and
woman is a more desirable setting for children to grow up in. If for
no other reason than a man a woman are more like "ordinary" families,
and having dual genders in the home is both the normative biological
and sociological basis for rearing children.
Ordinary families? Just what is an ordinary family? Perhaps the "normative"
biological and sociological basis isn't male/female in the human species.
Many other species raise their young in SINGLE gender groups, with the other
gender doing little or no child rearing, hey the guy is just there for the
contest for the female and a little "action" and then disappears back to his
group of males until the next mating season. Sounds like a lot of men I
know, not all of course, but a large enough number of them. Not male bashing
here, but we all know that women do the majority of the child rearing, no
matter how far feminism/equality has come. Of course humans mate all the
time, but again, that doesn't make child rearing a male/female thing. Look
at lions and elephants, the female raise the children, while the men pretty
much just hang around, hunting for food, and protecting the group. It is
ridiculous to imply that we have to raise our children in families that
consist of male/female couples. Women are perfectly capable of protecting
and providing now. Children do not require male/female parents in the home,
studies have shown it over and over again. In fact for most of human history
fathers were not around the children all that much, the so called traditional
family is really a myth. Most fathers were out working, some even being gone
for long periods of time, while the women raised the young, either in large
extended families, or with communities of women raising their children
together. Yes, men were in those groupings, but not as fathers, as uncles,
but primarily grandfathers. What does this say about the original case,
being that it involved two men? Well, it says that our society has evolved
so much that men now consider child rearing important enough to do on their
own, without women, which is just great. As so often on gaynet, the real
importance of a story is being ignored, more on that later. Everyone is
arguing about transphobia and homophobia while little about the real problems
with the case are being pointed out.
<<The tip of the
scales thus favors the same-gendered couple over the opposite-gendered
couple. And so on . . . the process of deciding who is the best
parental couple continues until a reasonable decision is made.>>
real impact that the denial of adoption rights to gay and lesbians isn't
that. It has to do with gay and lesbian parents of THEIR own children being
denied the right to adopt THEIR OWN children. As in, a lesbian couple
arranges for one of them to have a child, the non-biological mother taking
part in the entire process of bringing that baby into the world. So the
biological mother has a legal relationship with that child, the other mother
does not, and in those states that deny gays and lesbians from adopting, she
will never have a recognized legal relationship with that child. Even if the
biological mother dies, the other mother could lose her child permanently to
another family member, because gay and lesbians CANNOT adopt. Such was the
case years and years ago in Florida, that was the focus of a recent TV movie,
that mother never was able to adopt, she was just made her guardian.
I know many lesbian mothers living in those states that cannot adopt their
own children, and it is a very sad state of affairs. That is the real
problem, the denial of a mother's legal relationship (and protection by her
own govt. of that relationship) with HER OWN child. This case if appealed to
the SC could possibly deny the legal right of second parent adoption to
millions of gay and lesbian parents. I could go and on about this, as it
hits home in a very personal way, as my partner and I are currently hopeful
that our first insemination process will end up with a positive result for
pregnancy. Luckily we do not live in Florida, but California, where things
are pretty positive for my partner being able to legally adopt OUR child
(when it comes), but it could all be undone in a moment, perhaps even by a
gay or lesbian parent who tests the legal system. Currently there is a case
in California, where one lesbian mother is challenging the other's (her
ex-partner) second parent adoption. Long story short, this decision in
Florida is frightening, to many, many REAL families, who happen to be same
sex, and whose children are thriving in that environment.
blessings,
JoAnne Weber-Baligad
GIA Campaign
love him/her and want the child. There are plenty of heterosexuals who have
children only because they got drunk one night, etc.
If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, it's most likely because they want
to share their love with a child...not just accidentally have it happen
because they were drunk or stupid.
-Robert
--
This is message #272.
D Stephen Heersink
>Ordinary families? Just what is an ordinary family? Perhaps the "normative"
>biological and sociological basis isn't male/female in the human species.
>Many other species raise their young in SINGLE gender groups, with the other
>gender doing little or no child rearing, hey the guy is just there for the
>contest for the female and a little "action" and then disappears back to his
>group of males until the next mating season. . . .
The issue, though, is HUMAN, not other species. We can find all kinds
of different models of normative behavior for different species
(although the male-female reproductive paradigm is dominant across
most species). What is truly normative both biologically and socially
for HUMANS is the male-female-copulation-begetting-children paradigm.
When HUMANS talk in ordinary language of "family," it underscores this
biological and sociological norm. We ought not fear norms, unless
we're insecure in our own individuality.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #295.
Jwe...@aol.com
). What is truly normative both biologically and socially
for HUMANS is the male-female-copulation-begetting-children paradigm.
Yes, and that is pretty much exactly what happens, except the copulation is
by artificial means. The point was and is that we do not require both and a
man to RAISE a child, conceive yes, raise no. Children have been raised in
many different types of family relationships since the beginning of time.
And again, the point is being missed here. Are you saying that lesbians
shouldnt have children at all? That regardless of the adoption issue, which
is a huge issue for our families, we shouldn't have conceived our children in
the first place because someone says "well its always been done this way"
even though it really hasnt?
blessings,
JoAnne Weber-Baligad
Eric Payne
I've come to the conclusion our Mr. Heersink is one of two things:
1) A baiter. Not a "Devil's Advocate," but an instigator, period; or
2) Straight.
In the past three months, Mr. Heersink has shared with us the following opinions:
1) Tom Cruise should prevail in a slander lawsuit for being called "gay," because of
the way gays are treated in this country;
2) The Supreme Court's decision the BSA may discriminate against gays was a good
decision, as it allows "us" to see who "our friends are"; and
3) Gays and lesbians should be banned from adopting children, except in the most
special of circumstances, since a "normative" family consists of parents of two
genders.
In the issuance of his first two opinions, he called upon the gay community to
support his positions. Uh huh. Sure.
I'm gay, but I'm going to let Tom Cruise get $100 million because he was called gay,
because being gay in this country is a hardship and we, the gay community, should
show our strength and support for Cruise's right to sue because of the way gays are
treated, instead of working to change the way gays are treated in this country.
Showing Cruise support, in Heersink's mind, was somehow going to show the great,
ethereal "them" how adult and understanding we can be.
I'm gay, but I'm going to let the BSA use a portion of my paid tax money - and I
don't care how large, or how small that portion may be, it's still MY tax money,
dammit - to aid their organization in both the dismissal of current gay Scouts and
Scout leaders, and a ban on new gays joining. And I should simply ignore the fact my
stepson's school stands a very great risk of losing federal funding, as his school
district has removed the BSA from their campus.
I'm gay, and have a great deal of love to give a child. I lost my son two years ago;
my "stepson's" Dad and I broke up three years ago, although the kid and I remain
close. But even if my income warrants it, and my homelife is deemed satisfactory,
and my partner wants to be a father, I should simply accept a decision, based on
personal feelings, not facts, of a faceless Federal judge, simply because it's
"normative" for parents to be opposite gender?
Mr. Heersink, I simply don't see how you can possibly be gay. If there's been an
"anti-gay" directive in the last few months, you've supported that
directive/decision.
What next? There's already a growing tide among the right-wing of the Republican
party to re-classify AIDS as "GRIDS" again; since there hasn't been the momentous
outbreak in the heterosexual community as there was in the gay, their reasoning
goes, obviously the disease IS gay-related, with only the most extreme circumstances
having caused infection in the het world. They don't the knowledge of what to do to
help ensure a person doesn't get HIV/AIDS was gained, literally, on the graves of
thousands of gay men; those men died, but the knowledge their deaths created kept
others alive.
You going to support that, as well... the re-re-naming of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome to Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome? Following the logic and
arguments you've been expounding upon, the reasons for such a nomenclature change
fall right into your milieu.
Mr. Heersink, are you really gay? If so, what's your age? Why are you so willing to
be treated with less dignity, class and respect as any other citizen of this planet,
solely because of the gender of the person with whom you have sex... and to whom,
supposedly, you are drawn, emotionally?
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #298.
Natalie Davis
> > D Stephen Heersink wrote more of his usual drivel.
>
>I've come to the conclusion our Mr. Heersink is one of two things:
>
>1) A baiter. Not a "Devil's Advocate," but an instigator, period; or
>
>2) Straight.
ROFLMAO!
>Mr. Heersink, I simply don't see how you can possibly be gay. If there's
>been an
>"anti-gay" directive in the last few months, you've supported that
>irective/decision.
Actually, I can see how he could be gay. Aren't we taught to hate ourselves
from infancy? Apparently, he bought the heterosexual-supremacy/anti-queer
mentality lock, stock, and barrel. Sad, isn't it? And yet he expects us to
listen to his exhortations, tells us we "ought not" feel upset or paranoid
by society treating us as second-class citizens. Pathetic.
I am not angry at Stephen. I certainly don't wish to disrespect him. He has
the right to believe what he wants and express his beliefs. But this is
GAYnet... he ought to realize that most of us here are not inclined to obey
his pronouncements, which only broadcast what appears to be massive
self-loathing. I'm not falling for that. I hope other folks on this list
are confident enough in themselves and in standing up for their basic human
rights to just ignore his twaddle and realize that he may be one more queer
who buys the anti-gay line. I feel sorry for the guy, I really do.
>Mr. Heersink, are you really gay? If so, what's your age? Why are you so
>willing to
>be treated with less dignity, class and respect as any other citizen of
>this planet,
>solely because of the gender of the person with whom you have sex... and
>to whom,
>supposedly, you are drawn, emotionally?
I'd love to hear the answers to this. Except I wonder if it's healthy to
even read Stephen's stuff. Reading his self-loathing drivel turns my
stomach and leads me to pity him.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
--
This is message #300.
che...@home.com
----Original Message-----
>From: Natalie Davis <nata...@well.com>
>To: Eric Payne <jeric...@home.com>; gay...@queernet.org
>Subj: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida
>Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:38 PM
>
>At 04:08 PM 9/1/01, Eric Payne wrote:
>> > D Stephen Heersink wrote more of his usual drivel.
>>
>>I've come to the conclusion our Mr. Heersink is one of two things:
>>
>>1) A baiter. Not a "Devil's Advocate," but an instigator, period; or
>>
>>2) Straight.
>
>ROFLMAO!
>
>>Mr. Heersink, I simply don't see how you can possibly be gay. If there's
>>been an
>>"anti-gay" directive in the last few months, you've supported that
>>irective/decision.
>
>Actually, I can see how he could be gay. Aren't we taught to hate ourselves
>from infancy? Apparently, he bought the heterosexual-supremacy/anti-queer
>mentality lock, stock, and barrel.
Fluffy jargon aside, I think it's a lot simpler than that. Mr. Heersink strikes me as painfully simple-minded and shows a mind much like GWB's ... uninquiring, unreflective,and quick to defend the status quo.
It takes a certain minimal degree of independent thinking to buck the Mr. Normal thing and it looks like our Mr. Heersink didn't make the cut.
--
This is message #301.
Cheopys
The whole goddamned decision is evil. And given this, other disgusting court decisions, and the whole election mess, I'm inclined to look at the whole goddamned state as an evil place.
Chief Thracian
>they are no likelier to themselves be homosexual.
I wonder what their gay parents are doing wrong?
Afraid to ditch the hetero status quo, for fear of having their
children taken away from them.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #307.
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In other words, being opposite-gendered is but ONE favorable
>consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
>same-gendered.
In other words, being Aryan is but ONE favorable
consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
Jew.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #309.
Chief Thracian
>When are people going to stop seeing a gay relationship
>or a straight relationship, and start seeing just the relationship.
When all smug heteros and arrogant queer turncoats are blown off the
planet with a nuclear blast of pure conscience. Perhaps this full
moon, Sun. Sept. 2. Or perhaps our first counter-salvo against the
Religious Reich, in a big, public display of aggressive resistance.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #310.
Chief Thracian
<webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>You know what's sad, cheif? In every single paragraph you wrote below, you
>proved his point by way of your general attitude and phrases like "your kind
>of bisexuality" and "your bisexual-supremacist viewpoints".
I call a bisexual spade a bisexual spade; that's all.
>I can tell you right now what the entire problem is.
I wait on baited doggie breath.
>People like you need
>to realise that te labels are irrelevant. You cannot classify human
>emotions in this fashion without being divisive. Who cares whether a guy
>loves a man or a woman. That's irrelevant.
So if we drop all labels, we queers can hide in the closet, hoping
this will afford us some protection, in the long run.
>When are people going to stop seeing a gay relationship
>or a straight relationship, and start seeing just the relationship.
And because they don't, it's my fault, right; because I use "labels"
in order to help clarify the issue. I drop the label "Nazi" from a
homophobe, and he drops the label "faggot" for gays...and the
homosexuals w/o labels march silently off to gas chambers w/o signs.
My conclusion:
Some labels are very apt, when some go a very long way to merit them.
Such as "bisexual supremacist"...a mere variant on that old standby
"homophobia".
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #311.
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I couldn't agree more. The "Chief" comes across as the most cynical,
>bordering on paranoid, homosexual I've ever encountered.
You couldn't have misguessed me more. I am very positive about our
destiny, and eager to get through this oncoming global holocaust. Were
I cynical, I wouldn't have acquired so many wonderful boyfriends these
last few months...most of them homeless, but certainly strong, honest,
brave, loyal, trustworthy, and gay as a bent arrow! Were I cynical,
I'd keep to myself like a hermit, instead of all my street outreach
projects 24/7.
Furthermore, it is your own humorlessness that blinds you to a good
part of my personna. Don't blame that one on me, please!
>But the tactics and consequences used by the homophobes are
>the chief's principal tactics in reverse used by heterophobes.
That is because my form of preaching is "mirror shamanism". So on the
surface, yes, my tactics are simply the reverse of these homophobes.
But scratch that surface, and you'll find a wealth of spritual
resources to benefit all gays, everywhere...and to reverse the tide of
homophobia, that it may crash upon, and wipe out, our enemies.
>The chief is right to alert us to the Religious Reich (an admirable
>metathesis) and its enmity and hostility towards gays and lesbians.
I am outraged; I am livid with anger. I am PROUD.
>If gays and
>lesbians have an authentic enemy in today's world it is the religious
>fanatics of all stripes: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, not to
>overlook Buddhism and Hinduism.
And even atheism and hard science.
>Such fanatics are to be found in all
>walks of life, and the represent the single biggest threat to the
>common good. Their only satisfaction is a complete theocracy with
>their own version of fundamentalism as the only law.
That is why the homosexual issue will soon become a global embroilment
that will ignite revolution, and tear down old ways...with civil wars
everywhere on the planet, except Athenia. For prejudice against
against gays is severe and frequent, in at leat over 80% of the
world's population. There can be no liberty for gays without major
upheaval...and that is precisely what will start happening well before
the coming Holiday Season. In fact, Xmas will be a nightmare for many!
Ha!
>But, as I have iterated before, we must be careful not to attack all
>religious people, because many sincere Christians, Jews, Buddhists,
>and the like have affirming attitudes towards gays and lesbians.
Quite true. I myself, am a spiritual devotee, blending Christian,
Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Native Amerikan, Shaman, Celtic, etc. world
views into a global synthesis. But what these "friendly" religious
centers are NOT doing, is taking a definite stand in support of gay
people...just as they do against oppression of most *other minorities.
Thus, they are in danger of becoming nothing more than "friendly fire"
to the gay cause. Whether you are gently coerced to the gas chambers
with a warm smile, or brutally shoved into them...the outcome remains
tragic.
>We don't need to become the enemy in order to fight it.
No, but some do. It's called counter-espionage. And you won't know who
our enemies really are, except with hindsight, once the dust settles a
decade or so after WWIII.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #312.
Paul Halsall
PBH
--
This is message #314.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:53:38 -0700, D Stephen Heersink
><dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >In other words, being opposite-gendered is but ONE favorable
> >consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
> >same-gendered.
>
>In other words, being Aryan is but ONE favorable
>consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
>Jew.
Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some intrinsic
worth to homosexuality, or if you believe that it is not the right of
parents to determine the children they will or will not have.
I think the survival and success of glbt people is important. I don't
really care if another one is ever born, and don't see why I should.
--
This is message #317.
che...@home.com
----Original Message-----
>From: "Paul Halsall" <phal...@unf.edu>
>To: <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
>Subj: [gaynet] Prosaic Net Question
>Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 6:15 AM
>
>Does anyone know of a way to prevent pop under ads?
>
>PBH
>
>--
>This is message #314.
>**********
>
>To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
>To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
>(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
>up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
>
>For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
>a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
>
--
This is message #319.
che...@home.com
>From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rog...@queernet.org>
>
>I think the survival and success of glbt people is important. I don't
>really care if another one is ever born, and don't see why I should.
I can't wait to see Zeke bite off his own lips in outrage but I agree with you. For parents to impose something as basic asborientation would be as abhorrent as all the bigotry and hate that parents beat into their kids' heads.
Krahlin is taking up too much bandwidth on here. He is plainly psychotic. Let him stay on APH with David Hartung and Bruce Garrett.
--
This is message #320.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Mr. Heersink, are you really gay? If so, what's your age? Why are you so willing to
>be treated with less dignity, class and respect as any other citizen of this planet,
>solely because of the gender of the person with whom you have sex... and to whom,
>supposedly, you are drawn, emotionally?
You go, Eric. You have challenged Heersink forthrightly; let's now
hear his long list of sorry excuses, or his sudden silence.
Your entire rebuttal was intelligently and clearly framed. Good job.
No, not just good: brilliant.
(Now, let's get back to our arguing. :) )
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #321.
Chief Thracian
>Krahlin is taking up too much bandwidth on here. He is plainly psychotic.
>Let him stay on APH with David Hartung and Bruce Garrett.
So, is the jury in on this, Klorese? Are you going to block, based on
the simian rantings of some bottom dwellers? Or, as I believe,
maintain a steady keel? I don't want to continue posting, if my
messages never get to the list.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #325.
Chief Thracian
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>At 09:16 PM 8/31/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>In other words, being Aryan is but ONE favorable
>>consideration out of many that weigh in its favor over the
>>Jew.
>
>Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some intrinsic
>worth to homosexuality,
I sure as hell do.
>or if you believe that it is not the right of
>parents to determine the children they will
>or will not have.
No, it is not the right of any couple...it should be the decision by
the greater community. Once you know the child will be gay--even in
the womb--it becomes a heinous crime to abort that child on grounds
that he or she is homosexual. Same goes for those who want a boy over
a girl (or vice versa), blue eyes over other colors, etc.
If the child is born and grow up gay, parents have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT
to condemn and disown their child.
This is why the nuclear family is a rotten model, and some sort of
community family will rise up to replace it with a more wholesome,
gay-loving philosophy.
Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some
intrinsic worth to Semitism, or if you believe that it is not the
right of The Fatherland to determine the children they will or will
not have.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #327.
Sean Robertson
talking about coming to a point in our supposedly grand society where we are
capable of living together in a world that is neither straight nor gay, but
is free of both homophobia and heterophobia (of the variety you seem to be
filled with). I suggest you read the book "The Fifth Sacred Thing" by
Starhawk. There is no reason we can't create the utopia described in it.
We could do it far easier now than the characters in that book could under
their special circumstances.
Remember this - a society built around the concept of affirming diversity
thrives in the same way a diverse ecosystem thrives. Diversity allows a
group to more quickly adjust to changes in its environment both mentally and
physically. Every level of the natural world was designed by the processes
of evolution and natural selection to work best with variety.
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"
That is not just a quote from Star Trek. It is a truism. A philosophy. A
directive. A way of living.
--
This is message #328.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 15:17:57 -0700, "Roger B.A. Klorese"
><rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
> >Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some intrinsic
> >worth to homosexuality,
>
>I sure as hell do.
Really? What intrinsic value do you believe it has? I'm not talking about
its right to respect or equal treatment; I'm asking you to tell me what
intrinsic value it has.
> >or if you believe that it is not the right of
> >parents to determine the children they will
> >or will not have.
>
>No, it is not the right of any couple...it should be the decision by
>the greater community.
That's nonsense.
>If the child is born and grow up gay, parents have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT
>to condemn and disown their child.
Of course not.
>Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some
>intrinsic worth to Semitism...
Right. I believe it's the right of Jewish parents to choose to have or not
have children; I believe it's their right to choose not to because they
believe the life of a Jew will be too hard. I believe it's a shame, but I
believe it's their right.
> or if you believe that it is not the
>right of The Fatherland to determine the children they will or will
>not have.
You're the one who just argued that Fatherlands, not parents, should have
that right.
--
This is message #331.
D Stephen Heersink
cannot match. Besides, I don't respond to ad hominems.
It seems there are only five readers to these posts, not worthy of
one's time or energy. The same five myopic minds respond with the same
limitless mindlessness. One respondent even suffers such mental
anguish, at best, paranoia, at worst, beyond anyone on this list's
reach. As to the others, let them respond to half-read posts and
trumped-uped beliefs, and then refute themselves. But unlike their own
navel watching, I'll respond to the issues only.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #333.
Eric Payne
D Stephen Heersink wrote:
Eric Payne challenges me from his omniscience, a position I humbly
cannot match. Besides, I don't respond to ad hominems.
ad hominen: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motive.
I stated my opinion. I recapped your positions to date, easily verifiable by reading the past postings of this group at google/deja. I asked, to better understand your position, why you would come to those decisions. I did not question your motives; I requested information.
By definition, that is not an "ad hominem" position.
It seems there are only five readers to these posts, not worthy of
one's time or energy. The same five myopic minds respond with the same
limitless mindlessness. One respondent even suffers such mental
anguish, at best, paranoia, at worst, beyond anyone on this list's
reach. As to the others, let them respond to half-read posts and
trumped-uped beliefs, and then refute themselves. But unlike their own
navel watching, I'll respond to the issues only.
Concerning Ezekiel/Chief Thracian, I could not possibly agree with you more.
However, I don't see anyone contemplating their own navel; I see a vocal minority of people interested in obtaining knowledge which only you can proved, to help understand the logic of your position.
You are a gay man who has posted, publicly, opinions which equate to your support of homosexuals being "lessened."
I simply do not understand that position. I do not understand how someone could possibly support their own, unwarranted, societal punishments simply for existing in the manner they do.
I can see the need, as in POW camps, for some prisoners to accede, somewhat, to their jailers. It can be, quite literally, a battle for survival.
Yet your arguments, as they've been presented, serve the opposite purpose. They are not a battle for survival, but a headlong rush toward excoriation.
You are the only one who can provide those insights necessary for understanding your arguments.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Cheopys
At 05:57 PM 9/1/2001 -0700, Chief Thracian wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 15:17:57 -0700, "Roger B.A. Klorese"
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some intrinsic
>worth to homosexuality,
I sure as hell do.
Really? What intrinsic value do you believe it has? I'm not talking about its right to respect or equal treatment; I'm asking you to tell me what intrinsic value it has.
People without children can afford to take greater risks since they can afford a discontinuity in their lives a lot more than can parents. People who have don't raise children have thousand and thousands more hours over the course of their lives to compose sonnets and paint landscapes.
I know, I know, I am arguing childlessness but I think the eerie persistence of homosexuality across time and culture argues that there is some stable reason for our presence. We fit into a larger scheme of things somehow.
Nevertheless I think Krahlin's identification with everything gay is so extreme and intense that you may as well try to argue Pat Robertson into materialistic atheism as argue Krahlin into accepting the extinction of homosexuality in humanity.
Chief Thracian
>you may as well try to argue Pat Robertson into
>materialistic atheism as argue Krahlin into accepting the extinction of
>homosexuality in humanity.
And that makes me an extremist, how?
Furthermore, you lack the intelligence to discern between
"heterosexuality" and "heterocentrism". I condemn heterosexism (or
-centrism) totally. You are then distorting my stance to paint me as
anti-heterosexual. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your desire to censor me has no rational grounds.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #338.
Chief Thracian
<webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>I'm
>talking about coming to a point in our supposedly grand society where we are
>capable of living together in a world that is neither straight nor gay, but
>is free of both homophobia and heterophobia (of the variety you seem to be
>filled with).
I don't buy into this heterophobia theory, one bit. Any gay who does,
already reveals his own self betrayal, hypocrisy, and lack of pride.
To accuse a gay person of heterophobia (or biphobia), is like accusing
a concentration camp survivor of Naziphobia. As far as the terms
"biphobia" and "heterophobia"...they are invalid because nonexistant.
Whatever disgust a gay person shows towards bi's and straights is
founded on truth, not illusion...and homophobia possesses such
extensive dimensions of hatred, violence, and ignorance...that to even
accuse a gay person of either biphobia or heterophobia is in itself a
homophobic manipulation. Biphobia is a crock. So's heterophobia.
Homophobia, on the other hand, is real. A "phobia" is any unjustified
fear or hatred. From Random House Dictionary:
pho+bi+a (fO_bEE uh) n. pl. <-bi+as>
1. a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity,
or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. Homophobia
is totally unjustified. It is a violent and cruel act of persecution
to a vulnerable group of people. Ergo, homophobia *is* a true phobia.
Fear and hatred of heterosexuals is quite real, as so many are
homophobic...and often difficult to discern which ones aren't. In our
heterosexist society, no gay person can safely be himself or
herself--anwhere in our nation--without the persistant threat of being
murdered, beat up, job loss, housing loss, or a number of other
hostile responses. "Biphobia" is a clever term created by the
so-called bisexual political movement. Bisexual politics in large
part, plays on homophobia to create their own distinct
identity...while coyly pretending not to be homophobic in the least.
They take the hard-earned achievements of lesbian/thracian rights,
and turn it into their own...rather than bravely participate
directly in the gay movement. For the only real problem
bisexuals have in society, is their desire for homosexual
expression...they have *no* problem being accepted for their
heterosexual passions. In a nutshell: Gays sacrifice their
lives for a better world, and bisexuals lick up the blood to
slake their thirst. Bisexuals often portray their dual sexual drive as
"perfect", contrasting that with homosexuality, which is implied as
discriminatory to the opposite sex.
As if sexual arousal were proof of acceptance towards another...in
truth, it is only an itch for selfish pleasure, and is often used by
heterosexists to justify a sexual act that is legally seen as
rape. Every incidence of violence against bisexuals has always been
a form of homophobia. Just because the victim happens to be
bisexual, does not make the hate crime biphobic. Beware, gay
people: any bisexual who *insists* that biphobia is real, is
homophobic, and should not be trusted, ever. Any real
fighter for gay rights--who is bisexual or hetero--has no
difficulty participating in same-sex civil rights without
feeling a need to create a separate political entity...that
is, "bisexual politics".
Bisexuality is real, but is not a valid political movement. If
heterophobia (or biphobia) were real, we'd having roving
gangs of queers bashing straights (or bi's), queer property
owners evicting them, and queer employers firing them. None
of this is the case. But if you insist heterophobia is real,
by pointing out the occassional slur a gay might make about
straights...then you are equating an action that is so
ridculously mild as to be harmless, with another action that
is deplorably brutal and malicious. In other words, you
would be homophobic yourself
.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #340.
Chief Thracian
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>At 05:57 PM 9/1/2001 -0700, Chief Thracian wrote:
>>On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 15:17:57 -0700, "Roger B.A. Klorese"
>><rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>> >Your analogy makes sense only if you believe that there is some intrinsic
>> >worth to homosexuality,
>>
>>I sure as hell do.
>
>Really? What intrinsic value do you believe it has? I'm not talking about
>its right to respect or equal treatment; I'm asking you to tell me what
>intrinsic value it has.
Homosexuality offers a contrast to the overwhelmingly heterocentric
majority across the world. By being a minority of a very controversial
matter, sex, we touch upon the very chord of personal freedom and
choice. We queers remind heteros not to get too smug about their
privilege to breed. And it's just that: a privilege, not an
inalienable right.
We add a high level of creative and spiritual ideas and achievements,
while heteros are for the most part busying raising families.
But the most important facts that grants gays "intrinsic value" as a
birthright is this: we are also intelligent, living creatures, at
least equal to those who identify as heterosexual.
>>No, it is not the right of any couple...it should be the
>>decision by the greater community.
>That's nonsense.
No, that's tribal.
>I believe it's their right to choose not to because they
>believe the life of a Jew will be too hard. I believe it's a shame, but I
>believe it's their right.
So it's the right of any parent to not allow a gay person to be born
into this world, via abortion or even murder, or some other method
which isolates and persecutes gay children?
Of course, it's also the right of any person wanting to get involved
in volunteering or politics, to choose to avoid the gay issue
entirely.
So you let the majority run roughshod over gay people, because it's
"their right" according to Roger Klorese. Again, I cite the Bill of
Rights, which is specifically intended to protect minorities from the
tyranny of the majority. You, however, suggest that in a democracy
like ours, that it is the duty of any minority to obey the majority
dogma, which has some irrational "right" to perpetrate dogma.
>You're the one who just argued that Fatherlands, not parents, should have
>that right.
No, I did not. I said raising a child should be a local community
affair, not one between two adults, or by any dictatorial government.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #341.
Sam Damon
http://www.panicware.com/product_dpps1.html
I like this program because it gives an audible alert when an ad is
attempting to pop-up/under. To allow it through (i.e. when you purposely
want to open another browser window or hyperlink), simply hold the SHIFT or
CTRL key. It even blocks the annoying X-10 ads. I don't know if AdSubtract
offers other features but I was surprised to see that the file is a whopping
2728k's while PopUp Stopper is only 364k's.
Note that this program requires Internet Explorer and will not work with
Netscape. AdSubtract's larger file size is probably due to it having
versions for Internet Explorer and Netscape.
This is message #343.
Dana S. Leslie
He has already demonstrated his psychotic inability to so much as entertain
a worldview other than his own.
However, as a Bi Activist and one of the founders of the East Coast Bisexual
Network, I will not allow his ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted
characterizations of Bis and Bi politics to go unacknowledged as such.
Blessed Be,
Dana
D. S. Leslie, née C. R. Guttman
dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu
dsle...@home.com
dsle...@yahoo.com
dsle...@hotmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida
--
This is message #344.
Sean Robertson
between hating nazis and hating all Germans. I can hat Pat Robertson and
Jerry Falwell with a bloody passion, but by no means do I hate the millions
of other straight people out there. I don't even hate the ones who don't
see eye to eye with me. Hate as such is unproductive and destructive.
Instead, you should try to understand their point of view, and then use that
understanding to rationally persuade them to see otherwise. You have done
neither. Your constant irrational postings to this list do nothing to help
change the situation you so adamantly oppose.
Perhaps you need to be reminded of who the great revolutionary leaders were,
who the successful ones were. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi,
and Jesus Christ (leaving the religious aspects aside, he was a great
political leader, if nothing else), to name but three. None of those three
leaders ever used hate speech or violent measures to change their situation.
They knew that to do so would only reaffirm their oppressors' low opinions
of them. Non-violent protest, direct involvement in the system, and acts of
civil disobediance are the only ways to change things without irrevocably
harming your cause.
If you cannot be a positive engine for change, you only stand in the way of
those who can. Look at what the Black Panther Party acheived. All they
managed to do was increase the white fears of black people that were already
in existance, by affirming stereotypes of blacks as tending towards
violence. The BPP did nothing to furthur the cause of civil rights, and
perhaps even set it back a few years. For the love of God, do not make that
same mistake yourself. DO NOT hold the rest of us back through your own
incessant, hate-filled, irrational ramblings!
----- Original Message -----
From: Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida
--
This is message #346.
Chief Thracian
<webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
> DO NOT hold the rest of us back through your own
>incessant, hate-filled, irrational ramblings!
False accusations do not impress anyone.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #347.
David Thompson
> I am not going to let myself get drawn into this one, with Chief Thracian. He has
> already demonstrated his [deleted for the sake of tact].
Actually, histrionics are not necessary to justify a disregard his postings. In a
recent post responding to a comment by him, I talked about the difficulty of
creating a gay-only space that could be kept exclusively gay. He responded by
agreeing with me and pointing out that he isn't as interested in developing such a
plan as he is in complaining about its absences.
Now, here's where it gets perverse: I find nothing wrong with this. If he is only
looking for an outlet to complain, I don't see why he can't post the occasional
diatribe. Those who want to killfile him can do so; personally, I will read about
two lines of his text and that is enough to determine the gist of his message.
Gaynet is a wonderful opportunity to discuss issues of relevance to the gay
community and possibly come up with new, imaginative solutions in our efforts to
achieve equality. Furthermore, we have reached a point where gay rights can be
looked at exclusive of other issues (which--if his complaining is any
indication--should make Zeke at least slightly happy). If Zeke wants to harp on the
world, in general, let him. The marginal costs of doing so can't possibly be more
than de minimis and his mail is easily filtered by anyone who knows enough about the
Internet.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
This is message #352.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Homosexuality offers a contrast to the overwhelmingly heterocentric
>majority across the world.
But does everything need a contrast, or gain from it? Do we need to keep
killing around as a contrast to living? Or, without the value judgment, do
I need to paint my house a certain color simply because few others do?
> By being a minority of a very controversial
>matter, sex, we touch upon the very chord of personal freedom and
>choice. We queers remind heteros not to get too smug about their
>privilege to breed. And it's just that: a privilege, not an
>inalienable right.
A privilege? Why? It's a biological imperative; in fact, most gay people
have it, and have brainwashed themselves into believing they can never
exercise it.
>We add a high level of creative and spiritual ideas and achievements,
>while heteros are for the most part busying raising families.
You must not know the talentless gay people and brilliantly creative
heterosexuals I do, then.
>But the most important facts that grants gays "intrinsic value" as a
>birthright is this: we are also intelligent, living creatures, at
>least equal to those who identify as heterosexual.
That is a response re: the value of specific homosexuals, not of
homosexuality per se.
>No, that's tribal.
We're past that.
>So it's the right of any parent to not allow a gay person to be born
>into this world, via abortion or even murder, or some other method
>which isolates and persecutes gay children?
Not to be born? By abortion? If it's otherwise legal, sure it is.
> >You're the one who just argued that Fatherlands, not parents, should have
> >that right.
>
>No, I did not. I said raising a child should be a local community
>affair, not one between two adults, or by any dictatorial government.
The only difference between a "local community" and a "dictatorial
government" is whether or not they agree with you.
--
This is message #353.
Cheopys
I am not going to let myself get drawn into this one, with Chief Thracian.
He has already demonstrated his psychotic inability to so much as entertain
a worldview other than his own.
However, as a Bi Activist and one of the founders of the East Coast Bisexual
Network, I will not allow his ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted
characterizations of Bis and Bi politics to go unacknowledged as such.
Do you wonder why so few bisexuals give a damn about what militant gays think about us?
Cheopys
"Dana S. Leslie" wrote:
> I am not going to let myself get drawn into this one, with Chief Thracian. He has
> already demonstrated his [deleted for the sake of tact].
Actually, histrionics are not necessary to justify a disregard his postings. In a
recent post responding to a comment by him, I talked about the difficulty of
creating a gay-only space that could be kept exclusively gay.
Chief Thracian
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>At 02:12 AM 9/2/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>Homosexuality offers a contrast to the overwhelmingly heterocentric
>>majority across the world.
>
>
>But does everything need a contrast, or gain from it?
When I said "homosexuality offers a contrast", I never implied that to
mean that EVERYTHING does. But in the case of heterocentrism,
homosexuality not only offers a healthy alternative, but a striking
counterpoint to hetero dogma. Essentially, the contrast we provide by
challenging majority dogma, is a life-saving and rejuvenating facet of
humanity. We LGBT's are a cornerstone to the spiritual uplifting of
homo sapiens. Or as I like to say:
"There's a little homo in every homo sapiens."
>Do we need to keep killing around as a contrast to living?
Poor example. Killing is such a negative contrast, which is your
parallel to homosexuality...while "living" is your parallel to
heterocentrism. Attempting to answer such a question is accepting the
insult. So I won't.
>Or, without the value judgment, do I need to paint my house a certain
>color simply because few others do?
If such were the case in your neighborhood, I'd say SOMEONE needs to.
>A privilege? Why? It's a biological imperative; in fact, most gay people
>have it, and have brainwashed themselves into believing they can never
>exercise it.
Agreed. You may not realize this, but you have supported my stance
that breeding BY HETEROS is indeed a privilege, not a right. The fact
that it's a biological imperative does not mean heteros are supposed
to monopolize the entire issue of propagation. This natural imperative
includes all non-heteros as well. And yes, gays are brainwashed into
believing that breeding is the sole responsibility of heterosexuals...
and thus accommodate one of the most dogmatic attitudes born of
heterosexism.
>You must not know the talentless gay people and brilliantly creative
>heterosexuals I do, then.
Uh, I sure do. I am speaking of a FUTURE DESTINY for gays, more than
of past events.
>>No, that's tribal.
>
>We're past that.
Many pagans/shamans believe that we are evolving into a global tribe.
Some things from the past are due to reemerge in this spiral of life's
pattern.
>>So it's the right of any parent to not allow a gay person to be born
>>into this world, via abortion or even murder, or some other method
>>which isolates and persecutes gay children?
>
>Not to be born? By abortion? If it's otherwise legal, sure it is.
I shudder to imagine any society which allows abortion on the basis
that the child could grow up "gay". What kind of society would this
be? Oh, yeah, I know: Amerikan.
AFAIK, in western democracies where abortion is legal, they maintain
laws against aborting a fetus or embryo for reasons of prejudice. I'm
sure though, some get away with this by finding a more acceptable
justification, to conceal the real motive. And this will be a major
problem once, or if, there is such a thing as "the homosexual gene"
(or DNA pattern).
Hopefully, such a gene will be found to be tightly integrated with
basic things like having a face, possessing the right side of one's
brain, two arms instead of eight; or something else that is intrinsic
to being human. Then, removing the gay gene would be verboten.
>The only difference between a "local community" and a "dictatorial
>government" is whether or not they agree with you.
That comes later. :)
For now, suffice it to say that kibbutz communities already exist, and
serve as an excellent model for tribal democracies. A child is not
born behind close doors, and owned by a pair of heteros, to manipulate
the child's mind to any shape they wish. Community decisions over
birthing a child and raising it, ensures against such damage, as well
as provides a much healthier mix of community relations. Much more
effective protection against child abuse is also a benefit.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #368.
Chief Thracian
<david_ala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In a recent post responding to a comment by him, I talked
>about the difficulty of creating a gay-only space that could
>be kept exclusively gay. He responded by agreeing with me
>and pointing out that he isn't as interested in developing such
>a plan as he is in complaining about its absences.
Nonsense. The point I was trying to make, is that I am but one person,
with a plethora of good ideas for gay rights. You cannot expect me to
follow up on *all my ideas...it will take others who are inspired by
them, to carry them out. My gift to GLBT's is the fountain of my
imagination.
Furthermore, I AM already doing all I can to cultivate queer-only
spaces. Such as:
I am diligently working on networking gay people, both on the
Internet, and in social milieus (my reaching out to our GLBT homeless,
is one good example). My offer to make the creation of The Final
Testament, a global community project, is another example.
---begin essay:
THE BIRTH OF THE FINAL TESTAMENT
(c) 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
My web page is the beginning of a vision coming to fulfillment. It
will eventually be renamed "The Final Testament" or "The Dyke/Faggot
Bible". It will be a vast compilation of original writings and
graphics...by anyone who cares to contribute to the positive awareness
of the homosexual spirit.
No religious viewpoint will be barred, including atheism, agnosticism,
existentialism, and so on. Eventually, it will be so large that many
collaborators will contribute one or two megabytes of our own web
space, that chapters may be linked together across the vast Internet
global network. The beautiful works contained therein will shine with
dignity, wisdom, and humor...and will touch the hearts of all people,
and slay the beast of homophobia for once and for all. The vision
that led to these realizations started as a dream two years ago:
I was standing in a medieval monastery, in a room filled with monks
bending over their wooden benches in devoted concentration to the
creation of illuminated manuscript. It was a most peaceful scene,
with warm, golden sunlight passing through a window. Only the monks
also possessed soft, downy white wings...they were angels! One
angel-monk who stood beside ME, gave ME a nudge in the direction of
the benches, and said, "Go, and see what they're writing!"
So I approached one of the seated monks and gingerly looked over his
shoulder. Amid a border of brilliant gold-leaf and richly colored
illuminated manuscript, he was scrolling a title across the page: "The
Little Angel Who Wouldn't Fly". I gasped and stepped back, and said,
"Why, that's my story!"
The Monk looked up from his work and smiled: "Yes, they are all your
stories. YOU are to write the major part of what is to become the
last and final testament for all time."
And that was the end of this lovely dream-vision. Other visions have
shown Hellenic people around the world secretly gathering my writing
to put into this new bible. And it would, by then, include
contributions by many other Lesbians and Thracians...up to 70% of the
entire contents. I was shown how one morning I will walk by a
bookstore and see this bible of my dreams on display, as if by
magic...since I didn't have to lift so much as my little finger to get
it published!
Since then, I now realize that my web page is the birth of this final
testament...and already, I have two other contributors besides myself.
While I am obviously proud of my accomplishments --including my future
accomplishments-- I am most proud of being able to provide a space of
recognition to those who have gone without any pats on the back for
their talents and courage.
You take this in whatever way you so choose; I don't care. But I do
know my destiny is to play a major role in the next series of
victories on behalf of Hellenic Rights...via my writings, art, and
eventually, lectures. And many others will also rise to recognition,
like myself. It could even be you...as I do not pass judgment on
anyone.
My web page includes "The Little Angel Who Wouldn't Fly", as well as
other intriguing materials. I am honored to have such inspirations,
and to be able to contribute in such positive and empowering ways on
behalf of all same-sex lovers. It is a shame that many of my own gay
brethren still pick at me in such mean spirited manners. However, this
will soon end, as more and more people realize I am not deluded at
all...just incredibly gifted. And I have every intention of using
this gift to the maximum of my abilities...which includes empowering
anyone else, as often as possible, as soon as possible. I do not see
myself as the only one with this growing awareness, this calling is
happening to...and I expect a wonderful network of kindred souls to
rapidly connect via the Internet at first, then in other ways.
FINIS
April 1, 1997
----ADDENDUM:
Further visions on The Final Testament: Version 1 shall be composed
solely of my own writings. Version 2 shall be the anthology of GLBT
art and writings from around the world...reducing my contributions to
around 5% or less.
---end of essay
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #370.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>When I said "homosexuality offers a contrast", I never implied that to
>mean that EVERYTHING does. But in the case of heterocentrism,
>homosexuality not only offers a healthy alternative, but a striking
>counterpoint to hetero dogma.
You're not addressing my point: that if there were no homos in the first
place, you're arguing there would be some moral imperative to invent them
just for variety. My point is that how we treat those who do exist is one
thing, but you've given me little reason to believe that the world is
better off having a percentage of homos than not, just as the argument that
we'd be better off having a percentage of rock-eaters or chlorine-breathers.
> Essentially, the contrast we provide by
>challenging majority dogma, is a life-saving and rejuvenating facet of
>humanity. We LGBT's are a cornerstone to the spiritual uplifting of
>homo sapiens.
Implicit in this is the notion that there's something loftier about
homohood than heterohood.
> >Or, without the value judgment, do I need to paint my house a certain
> >color simply because few others do?
>
>If such were the case in your neighborhood, I'd say SOMEONE needs to.
If few others paint their homes blue with green stripes, just adding that
bit of variety doesn't do any service.
So far, the best answer you can come up with for why more homos should be
born is to keep you company.
Agreed. You may not realize this, but you have supported my stance
>that breeding BY HETEROS is indeed a privilege, not a right. The fact
>that it's a biological imperative does not mean heteros are supposed
>to monopolize the entire issue of propagation. This natural imperative
>includes all non-heteros as well.
So? Go breed. It *does* involve a heterosexual act, of course, but you're
free to do it.
>And yes, gays are brainwashed into
>believing that breeding is the sole responsibility of heterosexuals...
>and thus accommodate one of the most dogmatic attitudes born of
>heterosexism.
Try this: breeding is the sole responsibility of those who choose to
participate in the process.
>I shudder to imagine any society which allows abortion on the basis
>that the child could grow up "gay". What kind of society would this
>be? Oh, yeah, I know: Amerikan.
If we allow abortion on the basis that it would be inconvenient for the
parents -- which we do and with which I agree -- how can we argue what
inconveniences they may and may not consider?
>AFAIK, in western democracies where abortion is legal, they maintain
>laws against aborting a fetus or embryo for reasons of prejudice.
Um, no. Parents may abort in the first trimester here because, well, they
want to. There's no permit process.
>For now, suffice it to say that kibbutz communities already exist, and
>serve as an excellent model for tribal democracies. A child is not
>born behind close doors, and owned by a pair of heteros, to manipulate
>the child's mind to any shape they wish. Community decisions over
>birthing a child and raising it, ensures against such damage, as well
>as provides a much healthier mix of community relations. Much more
>effective protection against child abuse is also a benefit.
Such communities are largely unsuccessful experiments; even in Israel, the
great experiment is perceived as a wide failure, and in the remaining
kibbutzim, most children live with their parents and siblings these days.
--
This is message #376.
Cheopys
Why would you want this? I'm dead against such a "space" (please use a word that means something).
What I meant to say was that I can't tell if you're talking about a mailing list, a clubhouse, a meeting place, or seceding from the union. My idea of "space" is a 3-dimensional volume, or some orthogonal set of dimensions figurative or literal (eg. "address space") or the region outside the earth's atmosphere.
Dana S. Leslie
--
This is message #420.
Chief Thracian
<dsle...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Grandiosity, again.
Gay Pride.
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #431.
Chief Thracian
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>You're not addressing my point: that if there were no homos in the first
>place, you're arguing there would be some moral imperative to invent them
>just for variety.
No, I'd want them because they come from God's Own Heart...and without
gay people, the human species would be like a bird with a broken wing:
crippled and disheartened, drained of the spirit that makes one soar
to the greatest heights.
As for "variety"...well, that's the case made by ecologists, for
preserving all species, especially engangered ones. You trivialize the
concept of "variety", while they glorify it. I am with the ecologists,
on this one.
>My point is that how we treat those who do exist is one
>thing, but you've given me little reason to believe that the world is
>better off having a percentage of homos than not, just as the argument that
>we'd be better off having a percentage of rock-eaters or chlorine-breathers.
Rock-eaters and chlorine-breathers--like any other of God's
creation--play a vital role in the maintenance of our beautiful
planet. Without them, our global ecology would fall out of balance,
and make all of us quite miserable, if not outright dead.
>> Essentially, the contrast we provide by
>>challenging majority dogma, is a life-saving and rejuvenating facet of
>>humanity. We LGBT's are a cornerstone to the spiritual uplifting of
>>homo sapiens.
>
>Implicit in this is the notion that there's something loftier about
>homohood than heterohood.
There is. If you believe in angels or some other kinds of spirit
guides, you'd regard them as loftier than humanity. Not out of ego,
but of adoration.
>If few others paint their homes blue with green stripes, just adding that
>bit of variety doesn't do any service.
I disagree. From small acorns grow tall oaks. The "radical" person who
plants a seed amidst the wilderness, knows this quite well...and would
never think of betraying her obvious mission.
>So far, the best answer you can come up with for why more homos should be
>born is to keep you company.
Surely that's part of my viewpoint: I'd be one heck of a lonely queer,
if I were the only one!
>So? Go breed. It *does* involve a heterosexual act, of course, but you're
>free to do it.
I don't think artificial insemination and cloning require any sort of
hetero intervention...or at least, will not in the very near future.
Hurrah!
>Try this: breeding is the sole responsibility of those who choose to
>participate in the process.
No, breeding is a *group responsibility...and should therefore never
be left up to a single pair of heteros, who can easily breed without
first gaining permission from the community. Those who adopt, and gays
who want children, must first go through a rigorous community
evaluation. Why should we allow heteros such cavalier approval to pop
babies from the womb like diarrhea? This does no one any
good...especially when you consider all the UNWANTED CHILDREN brought
into this terribly overpopulated planet.
>If we allow abortion on the basis that it would be inconvenient for the
>parents -- which we do and with which I agree -- how can we argue what
>inconveniences they may and may not consider?
An "inconvenience" is no excuse to abort. What you seem to deny, is
that no matter which politico-social viewpoint you have, it all comes
down to this:
SOCIAL ENGINEERING
Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative: we are all
vying to socially engineer ourselves to ways that suit our values. Do
you really want the Religious Reich to have the final say in this? I
wouldn't think so...but in order to effectively resist them, you must
first accept the fact that we a fighting battles over who gets to
socially engineer whom, and in what ways.
>Um, no. Parents may abort in the first trimester here because, well, they
>want to. There's no permit process.
That has to change...now that it is getting more and more likely we'll
be able to determine many aspects of the child, while still in the
womb. What if I want only blue-eyed children? Abort! What if I want
only sons with penises 8 inches or more? Abort! What if I want a
daughter who is proficient in playing the piano? Abort! What if I want
only 100% hetero children? Abort!
>Such communities are largely unsuccessful experiments; even in Israel, the
>great experiment is perceived as a wide failure, and in the remaining
>kibbutzim, most children live with their parents and siblings these days.
Well, our nuclear families have also a lousy track record. We were
better off with large, extended families, because they were a
community, which oversaw the well-being of all children under this
family umbrella.
Ergo, socially re-engineering our society back to community values and
responsibilities will temper the dysfuntionality of nuclear familes,
and provide healthy alternatives to what we choose for "family". These
will be extended families of a sort...only instead of blood-kinship,
we'll have spirit-kinship.
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #435.
Chief Thracian
<rog...@queernet.org> wrote:
>You're not addressing my point: that if there were no homos in the first
>place, you're arguing there would be some moral imperative to invent them
>just for variety.
Some further thoughts:
Since we don't have any experience of living on a planet with no
queers, we can't really say what the result will be...it is all mere
conjecture. However, we can gauge some ideas on how the world would
be, by comparing gay-friendly nations with those that are not.
Those nations that most severely repress gays, can be regarded as a
close equivalent to a culture without homosexuals. And in every case,
such nations are terribly brutal dictatorships that oppress all but a
handful of the elite.
Those nations that most generously accept gays, can be regarded as a
close equivalent to a culture with homosexuals. And in every case,
such nations are wonderfully generous democracies that benefit all
citizens.
Then there are those nations that fall somewhere on this spectrum
between gay-friendly and gay-hateful. The closer they are to the
gay-friendly pole, the more gracious is the culture.
Now, you may want to point out South Africa as a gay-accepting
government, though still with major problems of homophobia. Well, I'd
say that is because they are not really a gay-friendly culture,
despite gov't laws. Also, this is a *new government layered over
centuries of tradition which condemned homosexuals.
Conclusion: A society that is good to gays, benefits all citizens. A
society that is gay hateful, is detrimental to all citizens.
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #437.
Cheopys
Grandiosity, again.
Plain ol' garden-variety Messianic delusions. Yawn.
Chief Thracian
>Plain ol' garden-variety Messianic delusions. Yawn.
With a name like "Cheopys", you should know.
Q: How do devils have safe sex?
A: With their tails.
Q: How do angels have safe sex?
A: With each other.
(To paraphrase Henny Youngman:)
Take my guardian angel, please!
---
THE TALKING SHEEP
Once upon a time, there was a talking sheep...of sorts.
He'd only speak two words, the same two all the time.
And he'd only say them once he started humping a
stranger's leg: "My baaaaad. My baaaaad."
---
Lavender-Velvet&Wool Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #442.
Marc Stauffer
Dear Eric:
Great questions for Mr. Heersink - I doubt we'll see a well worded logical
response. As conservative as I am at times I hope to hell that I don't get
to the point where denying gays - old, middle, young, and teens their
rights is somehow justified by what the general public or the general
church wants to believe.
Marc
--
This is message #479.
Eric Payne
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Eric:
>
>Great questions for Mr. Heersink...
Thank you.
> ... - I doubt we'll see a well worded logical response. As conservative as I
> am at times I hope to hell that I don't get to the point where denying gays - old,
>middle, young, and teens their rights is somehow justified by what the
>general public or the general church wants to believe.
I hope that as well. There are enough external pressures being put on
gays and lesbians as it is, by those who feel they've been granted
some special right, by God or the government, to do so.
I would hope Mr. Heersink does respond, if only to help clear the
confusion many of us, judging by public and private responses, feel to
his stand.
Yes, as Roger stated in a posting, Tom Cruise may be exposed to some
sort of financial loss, if producers and directors believe the
movie-going public is going to pay any attention at all to what a gay
porn actor says in a foreign magazine. If so, and if at that time the
producers/directors tell him he's not being cast since he's now viewed
as being gay, and cannot play a "believable" action hero, then that is
the time for such action to take place - when the loss is incurred;
not over the potential of a loss of a possible loss of income at some
nebulous point in the future.
I have a personal doctor. That doctor publicly admits to having
committed malpractice at some point. Do I then have the right to sue
for some future malpractice though his treatments for me have been
beneficial, improving my overall health?
But the "future loss" postion taken strikes me as being Cruise's
smokescreen, since the gay man in question, as well as the magazine in
which the statement appeared, have both issued retractions. In the gay
man's case, it was not simply a retraction, but an outright denial
that he had ever even met Mr. Cruise.
That is a point Roger, not Mr. Heersink rebutted; as I said, I can see
the logic of the position, though I, personally, feel the position
taken by Mr. Cruise is unwarranted.
Mr. Cruise could just as easily turned the event into a "win/win"
scenario: He could have said something along the lines of:
"Wow. I know that the fantasy of being intimate with a popular actor
is simply part of the package. Just by doing what I do for a living,
and doing it well, I know there are some people who believe they have
some personal relationship that simply doesn't exist.
"Though (so-and-so) is probably a very nice man, I am heterosexual,
and have no desire to have intimate relationships with a man; though I
do find the attention flattering.
"I wish Mr. (so-and-so) good luck in finding a partner who can share
with him the affection and love any person deserves."
But this is arguement redux; my opinions, and the thought behind my
opinions, have been stated, before.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #493.
Roger Klorese
news:ol5aptgn2b2ctddsk...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:46:28 -0400, "Marc Stauffer"
> sort of financial loss, if producers and directors believe the
> movie-going public is going to pay any attention at all to what a gay
> porn actor says in a foreign magazine. If so, and if at that time the
> producers/directors tell him he's not being cast since he's now viewed
> as being gay, and cannot play a "believable" action hero, then that is
> the time for such action to take place - when the loss is incurred;
> not over the potential of a loss of a possible loss of income at some
> nebulous point in the future.
Sorry, but that's not the way the typical show-biz lawsuit works, nor is
getting damages paid the reason it's usually filed. IThe name of the game
is: if you want to defuse the potential effects of a claim, deny early, deny
often, and carry a big lawyer. That's just the way it's done.
> But the "future loss" postion taken strikes me as being Cruise's
> smokescreen, since the gay man in question, as well as the magazine in
> which the statement appeared, have both issued retractions. In the gay
> man's case, it was not simply a retraction, but an outright denial
> that he had ever even met Mr. Cruise.
...at least some of which must be a total lie. The guy is on record making
trhe claims, then denying he met him.
> "Though (so-and-so) is probably a very nice man, I am heterosexual,
> and have no desire to have intimate relationships with a man; though I
> do find the attention flattering.
>
> "I wish Mr. (so-and-so) good luck in finding a partner who can share
> with him the affection and love any person deserves."
That doesn't cut it in the people's court.
--
This is message #551.
David Thompson
> ...at least some of which must be a total lie. [Chad Slater aka Kyle Bradford] is
> on record making the claims, then denying he met him.
From what I remember, it was either a magazine or website point to an interview in
another magazine in Europe where the claims were made. The magazine which supposed
had the interview has recanted and Slater denied even meeting Cruise.
I've started understanding why my family didn't want me to become an actor.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
This is message #554.
Sam Damon
semblance of facts. Surely you're aware that all people, including the
Religious Right and other homophobes, also have opinions. Where they lose
is that research usually don't support their contentions. Unfortunately, in
that sense, you're no better than they are. Read on...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 21:10:15 -0400, "Sean Robertson"
> <webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
> >of living together in a world that is neither straight nor gay, but
> >is free of both homophobia and heterophobia (of the variety you seem to
> >be filled with).
>
> I don't buy into this heterophobia theory, one bit. Any gay who does,
> already reveals his own self betrayal, hypocrisy, and lack of pride.
> To accuse a gay person of heterophobia (or biphobia), is like accusing
> a concentration camp survivor of Naziphobia. As far as the terms
> "biphobia" and "heterophobia"...they are invalid because nonexistant.
> Whatever disgust a gay person shows towards bi's and straights is
> founded on truth, not illusion...and homophobia possesses such
> extensive dimensions of hatred, violence, and ignorance...that to even
> accuse a gay person of either biphobia or heterophobia is in itself a
> homophobic manipulation. Biphobia is a crock. So's heterophobia.
Non-existent? I'm not sure where you're getting your information but I see
the word used in the clinical literature. What qualifies you to be an
arbitor of clinical nomenclature? Rather than be your research assistant
and explain each and every study to you, I'll simply list some references.
If you truly want to be educated and engage in intelligent discourse, you'd
look them up yourself. Michele Eliason, for example, quoting Rust (1995),
writes, ".. the fact that many lesbians and gay people have negative
attitudes about bisexuality maybe evidence for one major difference between
homophobia and biphobia." Hutchins and Kaahumanu (1991), Wiese (1992),
Geller (1990) and Tucker (1995) provided further evidence. Rust's 1993a
paper is especially good.
Eliason found that among her *lesbigay* subjects (n=58), 5 times as many
people found "bisexuals as somewhat or very unacceptable" than finding
lesbigays the same way. Note that these are gay and lesbian respondents.
In other words, biphobia is more prevalent than internalized homophobia
among homosexuals. Indeed, research finds that biphobia is often more
severe than homophobia. AND -- contrary to your ignorant claims, the
studies did not find that it's based on "truth." Biphobia is as irrational
as homophobia.
The best is probably by Amanda Udis-Kessler (1990), with whom I went to high
school.
I dare you to show me your studies or facts.
=====================
Eliason MJ (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual
undergraduate students. Arch Sex Behav 26(3):317-325.
Eliason, MJ (1996). Attitudes about lesbians and gaymen: A review and
implications for social service training. J Gay Lesbian Soc Services
2:73-90.
Eliason, MJ and Raheim S (1996). Categorical measurement of attitudes about
lesbian, gay and bisexual people. J gay Lesbian Soc Services 4(3):51-65.
Geller T (ed) (1990). Bisexuality: A Reader and Sourcebook, Times Change
press, Ojai, CA.
Hutchins L and Kaahumanu L (eds) (1991). Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People
Speak Out, Alyson, Boston.
Kaplan R (1995). Your fence is sitting on me: The hazards of binary
thinking. In Tucker, N (eds), Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and
Visions, Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY.
Paul JP (1985). Bisexuality: Reassessing our paradigms of sexuality.
Homosex 11:21-34.
Rust P (1993a). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal women:
lesbian's beliefs about bisexual women. J Sex Res 30:214-228.
Rust P (1995). Bisexuality and the Challenge to lesbian Politics: Sex,
Loyalty, and Revolution, New York University Press, New York.
Udis-Kessler A (1990). Bisexuality in an essentialist world: Toward an
understanding of biphobia. In Geller T (ed), Bisexuality: A Reader and
Sourcebook, Times Change Press, Ojai, CA.
Wiese ER (ed) (1992). Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism, Seal Press,
Seattle.
--
This is message #1009.
Sam Damon
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [gaynet] Fwd: Homosexual Adoption Ban Upheld By Florida
>
> Homophobia, on the other hand, is real. A "phobia" is any unjustified
> fear or hatred. From Random House Dictionary:
>
> pho+bi+a (fO_bEE uh) n. pl. <-bi+as>
>
> 1. a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity,
> or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. Homophobia
> is totally unjustified. It is a violent and cruel act of persecution
> to a vulnerable group of people. Ergo, homophobia *is* a true phobia.
So The Random House Dictionary is your source of medical or psychological
information?
While the term "homophobia" exists in the vernancular to describe homosexual
bias, virtually all experts today, including those who use the word, agree
that that except in the most extreme cases, it is not a phobia. I don't
know where you got your training to denote what a "true phobia" is, but once
more, please provide the studies to back your opinions.
Researchers like Fyfe and Herek have found that a classic physiological
phobic reaction simply isn't present in most cases. Fyfe writes, "an
agoraphobic may show increased pulse rate, a sweating reacion, or other
physiologically measurable indicators of increased arousal in combination of
open spaces. When we apply this definition ot homophobia, however, we
encounter a major difficulty. ... Furthermore, the essence os a learned
phobic reaction is the paired association of anxiety with a neutral stimuli.
Given the cultural biases, few members of American society, as now
constituted, would view homosexuality as a neutral stimulus."
And if you look in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-III, 1980 - unfortunately, my more recent editions are in the office)
for its criteria to list phobias, two factors exist that do not apply to
homophobia: 1) There must be a "compelling desire to avoid" the phobic
stimuli. If homophobes want to avoid gays, then we wouldn't have gay
harrasment and bias attacks. 2) There must be "significant distress from
the disturbance and RECOGNITION by the individual that his or her fear is
excesive and unreasonable." (DSM-III, p 230). What world are you living in
where homophobes recognize that their anti-gay feelings are excessive or
unreasonable??????????????
Furthernore, Herek, who provides an excellent review of older studies,
states, "Homophobia, a term often used to describe hostile reactions to
lesbians and gay men, implies a unidimensional construct of attitudes as
expressions of irrational fears. ...a more complex view is needed of the
psychology of positive and negative attitudes toward homosexual persons."
Much more accurate terms for most people who dislike homosexuals is
"heterosexist" or "homonegativist."
There are many other reasons why it's not a true phobia, which you can read
about if you care to do some research and self-education. And once more, I
have the courtesy to provide references, which is more than I can say for
you.
Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (3rd Ed) (1980).
American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC
Fyfe B. "Homophobia" or homosexual bias reconsidered. Arch Sex Behav
1983;12(6):549-554.
Herek GM. Beyond "homophobia": a social psychological perspective on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. J Homosex 1984;10(1-2):1-21.
Johnson ME, Brems C, Alford-Keating P. Personality correlates of
homophobia. J Homosex. 1997;34(1):57-69.
Milham J, San Miguel CC, Kellogg RA. Factor analytic conceptualization of
attitudes toward male and female homosexuals. J Homosex 1976;2:3-20.
Morin SF, Garfinkle EM. Male homophobia. Soc issues 1998;34:29-47.
Smith K. Homophobia: A tentatative personality profile. Psychol Rep
1871;29:1091-1094.
--
This is message #1011.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Biphobia is as irrational as homophobia.
I agree, and I also agree that heterophobia is just as irrational.
However, neither bi- nor hetero- phobia exist. Must I repeat myself?
The "scientific" accounts of certain queers' dislike of bisexuals and
heterosexuals is a manipulation of the truth, by labeling such
"dislikes" as "phobias". Were they phobias, we'd have evidence of
queers bashing heteros and bisexuals. But we have no such evidence.
What dislikes research may find among gays, against heteros and
bisexuals, is clearly due to the extreme opression of a heterocentric
society...which some bisexuals cruelly take advantage of, in order to
feel superior to "those homos".
---
A true Amerikan is a hetero-Amerikan.
Seig Heil!
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1020.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Researchers like Fyfe and Herek have found that a
>classic physiological phobic reaction simply isn't
>present in most cases.
You act like "science" is the end-all and be-all of any truth. It is
not. However, it can prove to be a powerful tool of either learning
truth, or manipulating truth. Science has often been used to bolster
nasty prejudices, and I don't think Fyfe and Herek are an exception.
Gay bashing and virulent hatred of gays is indeed a phobia, for it is
irrational and extreme. "Homonegativism" sounds so much more friendly
and non-threatening, doesn't it? Why, it even sounds legitimate!
---
A true Amerikan is a hetero-Amerikan.
Seig Heil!
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1024.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>1) There must be a "compelling desire to avoid" the phobic
>stimuli. If homophobes want to avoid gays, then we wouldn't have gay
>harrasment and bias attacks.
They can't avoid gays, because we're everywhere! A person with
arachnophobia will either avoid spiders (the preferrable choice), or
madly lash out at them with violent destruction towards the object of
fear. This is precisely how homophobia acts towards gays.
>2) There must be "significant distress from
>the disturbance and RECOGNITION by the individual that his or her fear is
>excesive and unreasonable." (DSM-III, p 230). What world are you living in
>where homophobes recognize that their anti-gay feelings are excessive or
>unreasonable??????????????
How absurd. And you call this scientific research? People suffering
phobias do *not usually recognize the illness as a phobia. It is only
later, that they may come to realize this...by virtue of a friend
leading him or her to a doctor, or by seeking medical help on one's
own. By the definition that you espouse, no phobia really exists,
unless or until science sanctifies its existence. And you know as well
as I do, that phobias exist quite well, thank you, on their own
without science...and have existed since mankind existed...and this is
well before science came onto the scene.
But because homophobia is so virulent and deep-rooted in the psyche,
most gay-haters adamantly REFUSE to acknowledge their mental
disease...hiding behind the skirts of "religion" to legitimize
homophobia.
Further: recognition of a phobia cannot occur, unless it is
authenticated by the priests of science. And homophobia is not only a
rather recent phobia of recognition; it is also, due to its nature,
one that is strongly resistant to recognition.
Our country, and most of the world, suffers from the psychic virus of
homophobia. All this understanding comes from horse sense, not
scientific validation.
Your examples only strengthen my points, and weaken yours.
---
"I'd walk a mile for a camel, two for a sheep or goat,
and three for a boy." - ancient Islamic saying.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1033.
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (Most experts cite the
>experience that once a person comes to know a homosexual personally,
>many of the anti-gay sentiments abate.) One would think that personal
>acquaintance would not cause true phobias to abate. Irrational fear of
>spiders or of homosexuals would be the only instance of true
>homophobia, and such sustained irrational fear is relatively rare.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! That data is seriously warped. Indeed, MOST
homophobes REMAIN homophobic, even after having one or more close
friends who are gay. Just go ask any one of the millions of queers
dwelling in small-town and rural Amerika.
Who ARE these "most experts", anyway? Oh, I know: Nazi scientists.
---
"I'd walk a mile for a camel, two for a sheep or goat,
and three for a boy." - ancient Islamic saying.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1038.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>In other words, biphobia is more prevalent than internalized homophobia
>among homosexuals. Indeed, research finds that biphobia is often more
>severe than homophobia. AND -- contrary to your ignorant claims, the
>studies did not find that it's based on "truth." Biphobia is as irrational
>as homophobia.
My claims are far from ignorant; they are based on EXPERIENCE, the
only real teacher when you come down to it. I encounter, still, after
many years, lots of bisexuals who are quite arrogant over gays.
Problem is: rarely does any gay person challenge them. I do, and boy
does the gay hatred rise up and bubble over!
>The best is probably by Amanda Udis-Kessler (1990), with whom I went to high
>school.
Where you studied together, Nazi Propaganda 101.
>I dare you to show me your studies or facts.
Oh, if science does not agree with my own experiences that were quite
objective, then I can not be considered truthful. What a convenient
method to suffocate free-thinking everywhere! Use peer pressure to
SHAME anyone into submission, if they can't instantly quote from this
tome or that, some piece of "scientific" data. Which data is easily
manipulated by our Nazi overlords, to make it read whatever they want.
And then YOU decide to quote from this perverted materiel, and except
ALL OF US to fall for your two-bit Nazi diarrhea!
But here's the REAL scoop: Science is but one tool for learning truth.
The other is through an honest reporter, such as myself. Ergo: Art is
the other major tool for learning truth...for true artists are
messengers for the goddesses.
---
"I'd walk a mile for a camel, two for a sheep or goat,
and three for a boy." - ancient Islamic saying.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1042.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Where you studied together, Nazi Propaganda 101.
OK, knock it off. Anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi? If I hear that
again here, you can find yourself another list.
> >I dare you to show me your studies or facts.
>
>Oh, if science does not agree with my own experiences that were quite
>objective, then I can not be considered truthful.
No, if one person's experience, no matter how truthful, is isolated and not
confirmed by the experiences of others, it can't be generalized as
universally true.
> But here's the REAL scoop: Science is but one tool for learning truth.
>The other is through an honest reporter, such as myself.
An "honest reporter" can report on one person's experience, but cannot
generalize that to a truth.
PS: post to the correct address, groups.queernet.org.
--
This is message #1043.
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>anti-gay sentiment should not be confused for genuine homophobia
anti-Jewish sentiment should not be confused for genuine anti-Semitism
---
"I'd walk a mile for a camel, two for a sheep or goat,
and three for a boy." - ancient Islamic saying.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #1045.
D Stephen Heersink
thoughtlessness:
>>anti-gay sentiment should not be confused for genuine homophobia
>
>anti-Jewish sentiment should not be confused for genuine anti-Semitism
NO. Anti-semitism should not be confused with Jewish phobia. While I
doubt there are many people vulnerable to Jewish phobia, that is, an
irrational fear of Jews, there are people who sadly dislike Jews. Your
analogy is, as usual, off base.
Homophobes have an irrational fear of gays or lesbians or both, while
anti-gays don't have an irrational fear, but may oppose political
issues and objectives of a large majority of gays &c. Irrational fear
is NOT the same thing as being politically opposed. It's indeed
possible for there to be subsets of one of the other, but they are not
equivalent uses.
You clearly are unable to grasp what a "phobia" is, using it
indiscriminately and unable to use it properly in a sentence.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
--
This is message #1058.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com> writes in his usual
>thoughtlessness:
Hey, unnecessary and off-charter.
> >>anti-gay sentiment should not be confused for genuine homophobia
> >
> >anti-Jewish sentiment should not be confused for genuine anti-Semitism
>
>NO. Anti-semitism should not be confused with Jewish phobia.
>You clearly are unable to grasp what a "phobia" is, using it
>indiscriminately and unable to use it properly in a sentence.
While my earlier post agreed with you, homophobia is not restricted to
being a classic phobia. Merriam-Webster defines it as "irrational fear of,
aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" --
need I check others? The term doesn't derive from a technical origin, and
never has strictly referred to fear per se.
PS: please use the correct posting address, gay...@groups.queernet.org.
--
This is message #1063.
Sam Damon
>
> While my earlier post agreed with you, homophobia is not restricted to
> being a classic phobia. Merriam-Webster defines it as "irrational fear
of,
> aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" --
> need I check others? The term doesn't derive from a technical origin, and
> never has strictly referred to fear per se.
Actually, it did. A groundbreaking 1976 paper by MacDonald which influenced
all future research defined homophobia as an "irrational, persistent fear or
dread of homosxuals." (MacDonald, p23) In a previous message, I've already
explained why it's not a true phobia, as defined by the DSM. Granted, the
general public used it more loosely and continue to do so. And yes, even
reseachers use it with the understanding that it's a poor term for which
there exist no better alternative. But that's problematic on several
levels, which Fyfe points out quite eloquently. I'll go into only one of
them, using your Merriam-Webster definition.
Virtually all studies on the topic have shown that religion is a major
source of what we loosely call "homophobia" (unfortunately, my homophobia
file is at my other apt, but I can provide references on request if needed).
Given that these strongly held convictions often label gays as sinners, thus
a source of wrath from God (i.e. Falwell), it is then *not* irrational to
shun gays. In the minds of these people, it is a very logical and rational
viewpoint based on survival. Having the initial facts wrong does not mean
that a reaction is irrational. Unfortunately, when we deal with religion,
facts are hard to come by. Regardless, the reaction -- i.e. fear or
aversion -- makes perfect sense if there is indeed a God who views
homosexuals as evil. And being that such a deity's existence is unprovable
either way (and I admit to that even though I'm a diehard
journal-subscribing atheist), we can't even fairly say that the foundations
of their reaction is wrong.
I list two references below which illustrates why a seemingly irrational
conclusion becomes logical given certain contraints.
As for the discrimination against homosexuals, once again, it is a rational
reaction if the premise is true. Indeed, we discriminate against people all
the time, but we would neer call it xxxxphobia. For example, if I was to
advertise for a roommate, I'd clearly state: "Non-smoker only." Am I
smoker-phobic? How many of us would socialize with a known wife-beater on
the same level as someone who isn't (given all other things being equal)?
Are we then wife-beater-phobic? We dislike it, but are we phobic? If your
dictionary definition of "discrimination against XXXXXX" is all that's
necessary, then is racism a phobia? Think about this carefully because
there are legal implications. Phobias have been used as a legal defense
(i.e. gay panic) whereas no one would dare use racism as a defense. Even in
the vernancular.
Using your own views on the Red Cross (I could be mistaken!), are they
homophobic although their rationale for rejecting gay blood seems to be
purely scientific, albeit overly broad? It certainly discriminates. And as
another problematic example, if I avoid the gay community because I find it
to be ageist (which several studies have proven, one which I posted in a
previous message) -- would I be male-homophobic although my my aversion is
based on a dislike for a pervasive opinion and not homosxuality itself?
In its strictest sense, gay panic (aka Kempf's Disease because he first
described it in 1920) is perhaps the most accurate definition of
"homophobia," although Kempf only looked at internalized manifestations. He
described it as "feverish panic or agitated furore, amounting sometimes to
temporary manic insanity..."
I'll end this by quoting MacDonald (p 24), "A term that means everything has
little utility ... such usage is likely to lessen our objectivity and to
inhibit us in our attempts to find other explanations for negative reactions
to homosexuals." Absolutely. It 's an umbrella term that generalizes
people without adding to our understanding of those people, their
motivations, or its resolution.
But yeah, I too use the word almost everyday .... :) But I feel guilty
about it.
================
References:
Chuang HT, Addington D. Homosexual panic: A review of its concept. Can J
Psychiatry 1988;33:613-617.
Fyfe B. "Homophobia" or homosexual bias reconsidered. Arch Sex Behav
1983;12:549-554
Herek GM. Beyond "homophobia": a social psychological perspective on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. J Homosex 1984;10(1-2):1-21.
MacDonald AP. Homophobia: Its roots and meanings. Homosex Counsel
1976;3:23-33.
MacDonald AP, Huggins J, Young S, Swanson RA. Attitudes toward
homosexyuality: Preservation of sex morlaity or the double standard. J
Consult Clin Psychol 1972;40:161.
------
And these two show how, given certain constraints, a seemingly irrational
conclusion becomes logical:
Bowles L. Suicide. Logical conclusion? Nurs Times. 1993 Aug
4-10;89(31):32-4.
Wilber CG. Some thoughts on suicide. Is it logical? Am J Forensic Med
Pathol 1987 Dec;8(4):302-8.
--
This is message #1064.
Eric Bohlman
>While my earlier post agreed with you, homophobia is not restricted to
>being a classic phobia. Merriam-Webster defines it as "irrational fear of,
>aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" --
>need I check others? The term doesn't derive from a technical origin, and
>never has strictly referred to fear per se.
I think it's worth pointing out that words like "anglophobia" and "francophobia" also don't refer to
phobias in the medical sense, yet have long histories. You simply can't read English (or any other
human language) the same way you read mathematical expressions: in human language, the meaning of
the whole is not simply the concatenation of the meanings of the parts. As Donald Knuth pointed out
in _Sorting and Searching_, we don't take "damage" as meaning "the age of a female horse." In fact,
a lot of geek humor is based on pretending to read English as if it were math. Note also that in
chemistry, one can describe molecules as "hydrophobic" or "hydrophilic" without any danger of
anthropomorphising.
All that said, George Weinberg, who coined the term "homophobia," originally used it to mean severe
discomfort from being physically near to someone known to be gay. For research purposes, it's
probably useful to distinguish this from an abstract aversion to other people's homosexuality,
though it may in fact be merely a difference of degree, not kind.
--
This is message #1068.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>The point here is that dictionaries are not the best
>source for linguistic use of paramedical language.
Only for a technical definition, not one of how the term is popularly used,
which is what counts here. Once a term is in popular use, its technical
definition is only relevant in a technical context.
--
This is message #1069.
ferris
Eric Bohlman wrote:
>Note also that in chemistry, one can describe molecules as
"hydrophobic" or "hydrophilic" without any danger of anthropomorphising.
I don't know how many times I've seen someone get a quizzical look on
their face and then realized that I'd said "homophobic protein domain".
I hope I haven't done it to a large audience.
Knock wood.
Patrick
--
This is message #1070.
ferris
Sam Damon wrote:
> Using your own views on the Red Cross (I could be mistaken!), are they
> homophobic although their rationale for rejecting gay blood seems to be
> purely scientific, albeit overly broad?
It certainly seems to be overly broad, but that's a separate issue.
It's inconsistent. According to a discussion on aph, if a man has had
sex with another man (even just once) in the last 25 years, he cannot
give blood. If a woman has had sex with a man who is actually HIV+, she
can give blood after 1 year. Such a policy is simply illogical. Whether
it's homophobic is unclear, because that depends on what the motivation
is, which may be inertial resistance to change, fear of media backlash,
concern about other diseases, concerns about how to keep the sexual
profile questions simple or perhaps homophobia.
Patrick
Red Cross guidelines:
You Must Not Donate Blood If You Have:
Taken ("shot up") illegal or non-prescription drugs by needle, even
once.
Taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as
hemophilia.
Tested positive for the AIDS virus or antibody.
Received money or drugs for sex since 1977.
Had a sexual partner who puts you at risk for AIDS. This means - had
sex within the last 12 months with someone who is at risk for AIDS or,
For Men: had sex even once with another male since 1977; or,
within the last 12 months, given money or drugs to a female to have sex
with you.
For Women: within the last 12 months, given anyone money or
drugs to have sex with you; or had a male sex partner who had sex with
another male even once since 1977.
Lived in, or were born in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977; or, since
1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood
product in any of these countries; or, had sex with anyone who, since
1977, was born in or lived in these countries.
Taken Tegison for psoriasis
--
This is message #1077.
Paul Halsall
>>anti-gay sentiment should not be confused for genuine homophobia
>.anti-Jewish sentiment should not be confused for genuine anti-Semitism
I am not sure why the semantics is so important.
"Homophobia" is a misinvented word since it literally means, if you assuming
an entirely Greek etymology, "fear of the same." If you accept it is a mixed
origin word (Latin+Greek) it would mean "fear of human beings." It was
clearly an effort to reduce "homosexophobia" ("homo"
[Greek]+"sexo"[Latin]+"phobia"[Greek]) to something more manageable.
Alternatively it might be taken to mean something like "fear of 'homos'" in
which case it was taking a slang/offensive term, and adding -phobia. A
comparable example would be a word such as "kikeophobia."
It has, however, become accepted as a standard word, but there weirdness of
its etymology and origin should put us on guard against deriving too much
from the word itself.
What it actually means is a multivariated concept equivalent to "racism" (or
"racialism") and "sexism." It has never meant to describe an actual phobia.
There may be people with a mordant fear of homosexuals, but another term
would need to be found to describe them.
In some cases, clearly, people who may hostile to homsexuals may indeed
derive there hostility from fear. Long before AIDS there were many examples
of homosexuals being seen as dirty or untouchable. [An some homosexuals may
have seen themselves in this way -- in "The Mayor of Castro Street" there is
the account of an occasion when Harvey Milk met Jimmy Carter's evangelist
sister (whose name I forget). She shook his hand, and he said to her, "are
you sure you know where that has been." That may have been a camp comment,
but it also witnesses to some pretty deep internalization of hatred on
Harvey's part.]
Similarly, some people feared Jews so much that they would not touch them.
And in Apartheid societies such as the Jim Crow South, South Africa and Raj
India, the creation of separate facilities is witness to a fear of
contamination which does seem to indicate real phobias.
But these days, in the case of Jews, Blacks, and Gays, it is quite possible
for someone who is, in terms of our political discourse, Antisemitic,
racist, or homophobic, to have no actual fear or even dislike. But by
refusing to reconsider political or economic structures that systematically
oppress the other, such people are still properly called "Antisemites,"
"racists," or "homophobes."
Paul Halsall
PS: In the case of "Anti-Semitism" we have a word that was specifically
invented in late 19th century Germany to give a scientific gloss to
"anti-Jewishness." Nevertheless, I think a distinction could be made
between "Anti-Judaism" and "Anti-Semitism." In a sense, anyone who rejects
the truth claims of a given faith is "anti-" that faith. In that limited
sense, I think a distinction is fair. A more important historical
distinction might be that "anti-Jewishness" in both Muslim and Christian
worlds ended at the moment a Jew converted (early Modern Spain is the great
exception). I have to say that, however virulent, I think that it is this
sort of "anti-Jewishness" that one still sees in much of the Muslim world.
Anti-Semitism as we saw it in the 20th century West was entirely based on a
notion of race, even though it drew many of its images from an older
Christian tradition. That is why during the Holocaust (and I hope I will
not, given the subject, be accused of making a Hitler argument here) there
were thousands of Jewish converts to Christianity who were subject to
persecution.
--
This is message #1078.
Sam Damon
>
> > Sam Damon wrote:
> > Using your own views on the Red Cross (I could be mistaken!), are they
> > homophobic although their rationale for rejecting gay blood seems to be
> > purely scientific, albeit overly broad?
>
> It certainly seems to be overly broad, but that's a separate issue.
> It's inconsistent. According to a discussion on aph, if a man has had
> sex with another man (even just once) in the last 25 years, he cannot
> give blood. If a woman has had sex with a man who is actually HIV+, she
> can give blood after 1 year. Such a policy is simply illogical. Whether
> it's homophobic is unclear, because that depends on what the motivation
> is, which may be inertial resistance to change, fear of media backlash,
> concern about other diseases, concerns about how to keep the sexual
> profile questions simple or perhaps homophobia.
I agree completely. None of my gay friends who work for the Red Cross
believe that homophobia is the basis of its policy although many believe
that the lack of will to re-examine it is due in part to the minorities
affected. "Inertial resistance" is the perfect terminology. I can't say
that I blame the Red Cross all that much considering that there is so much
more on their minds, even before the WTC attack. And unless it can be shown
that gays (and the other groups affected) can greatly help in supplying
blood, I don't think change is imminent.
In the mean time, lesbians can help represent the community by giving blood.
> Red Cross guidelines:
>
> You Must Not Donate Blood If You Have:
>
> For Men: had sex even once with another male since 1977; or,
> within the last 12 months, given money or drugs to a female to have sex
> with you.
I haven't checked the guidelines since leaving HIV counseling, but many
years ago, gays and all the other groups were allowed to give blood -- as
long as they specified that it was for "research purposes only." Being in
medical research, I know well that blood and other tissues are always
welcomed. HIV+ tissue is of course welcomed in HIV research. Is the Red
Cross now rejecting these donors, even for research? I can see why, though,
as they don't have the money and medical research is not part of their
mission.
--
This is message #1082.
Sam Damon
>
>> From: Chief Thracian
>>anti-gay sentiment should not be confused for genuine homophobia
>>.anti-Jewish sentiment should not be confused for genuine anti-Semitism
>
> I am not sure why the semantics is so important.
In general, for everyday speech, it probably isn't. It did in this case
only because Thracian's intitial message was a psudo-clinical pronoucement
that "homophobia is a true phobia" (as opposed to biphobia and heterophobia,
which he claimed don't exist, although the literature proves otherwise).
Hence the subject heading, which I initially chose.
It depends on the context, I guess. When making academic or clinical
claims, stricter usage is demanded.
> PS: In the case of "Anti-Semitism" we have a word that was specifically
> invented in late 19th century Germany to give a scientific gloss to
> "anti-Jewishness." Nevertheless, I think a distinction could be made
Although I too use the word "homophobia" and its variants pretty loosely,
there's a simple and accurate solution, without invoking the context of a
phobia. These substitutions, are on the righthand side, are neither more
acceptable or scientifically-glossy, thus have no agenda except to be more
accurate. And yes, I know that this is somewhat silly...
homophobic (adj) = anti-gay (long 'i') or anti-homosexual
homophobe (n) = anti-homosexual or antigay (said quickly with a short 'i')
homophobia (n) = anti-homosexuality or anti-gayism
--
This is message #1083.